Recently in NEWER RELEASES pg.5 Category

Directed by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson. Starring: (Voice) Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai, Delroy Lindo.Animated/Family/Fantasy. Synopsis: An elderly widower seeks out his ultimate adventure and flys away in his house to a mystical island in South America he's dreamed of since he was a boy. Unknown to him, he has an ambitious young wilderness explorer has stowed away in the house and the two reach Paradise Falls where they encounter exoctic animals and a long forgotten adventure hero.  

Delightful. Great story. Incredible animation and videography. Its pretty simple, this is an excellent film. The only even minimal criticism I could level at this one is that there are bonus features on the DVD, my understanding is that there will be a special edition DVD with those things on it and I'll bet that one is excellent, too, but it would have been nice to have both on one disc.

UP  is the story of Carl Frederickson (Ed Asner JFK), and we meet him as a boy who is mesmerized by news reel footage of an adventurer named Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer Malcolm X Somewhere In Time) who has visited a strange and exotic place in South America called Paradise Falls. Muntz becomes Carl's hero and Carl starts acting out his adventure fantasies around the neighborhood. One day he meets a young girl named Ellie who is playing alone in an abandoned house and the two become friends and end up getting married. From that point starts a delightful montage-with no dialogue-where we see Carl and Ellie progress as young adults, buy the abandoned home where they met and fix up; experience the heartbreak of not being able to have children, grow old together, and ultimately Ellie's death. It is a surprisingly powerful theme for an animated flick but it is very well done and, if I can use the cliche, heartwarming.

Its at this point in the present day when the story really starts, Carl the widower still living in his beloved house, now surrounded by urban sprawl, talking out loud to his beloved Ellie and refusing to either sell his property or move to the Shady Oaks retirment home.

Carl (a dead ringer in animation for Spencer Tracy in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?)  is aq bit crotchety, as we see with a young boy named Russell (Jordan Nagai) who is an aspiring Wilderness Explorer looking to get his badge for assisting the elderly, as well as when Carl gets a little rough with a construction worker which ends up getting him ordered to a retirement home.

But, Carl has other ideas. The morning that they come to "take him away", the former balloon salesman has a surprise for them when he frees hundreds of balloons that lift his home off of its foundation and floating high above the clouds towards Paradise Falls. The industrious Carl has also installed a navigation system to steer so its all good and peaceful...until there is a knock at the door! Yes, it seems Russell happened to be in the foundation of the house, looking for "snipe" (which Carl had said to him to get Russell off his front stoop at their first meeting)

So, Carl has company and it comes in handy when they have sort of a rough landing near Paradise Falls. There, they encounter never seen before animals such as a colorful giant bird who playfully loves to swallow things whole and then spit them out and also loves chocolate. Russell names him Kevin. Next up comes 'Dug', a friendly dog who, when his collar is enabled, can talk.

All Carl wants to do is get his home settled and get Russell home, but it seems Dug is just one of many dogs who can talk with the special collar. And, who is the mastermind behind the talking dogs? Well, none other than the long gone and forgotten Charles Muntz, who has dedicated his long life to proving the existence of a specific breed of bird to the world of doubters, namely, capturing Kevin.

The whole story is just fun from start to finish, with the growing relationship between Russell and Carl being the main centerpiece of the story, but there are also plenty of laughs throughout as well. Charles Muntz is a wonderfully sinister character, but in the end we see he was completely warped by his own desire for adventure in the opposite way that Carl comes to realize he already, and can continue to have, his own wonderful adventure without going to the other side of the planet.

I'm no expert on animation (or anything else, for that matter), but what Pixar does is exceptional, in my opinion. I mean, you feel like these are real characters at times. One example is the stubble that develops on Carl's chin. And, of course, what classic animated picture could be complete without adorable, talking animals? (Listen for the voice of Delroy Lindo Ransom, as one of Muntz's talking dogs) 

This is a wonderful movie and I can't imagine any movie fan of any age or genre preference who would not enjoy it as some level.         

Directed by Robbie Bryan Starring Terri Colombino, Frank Grillo, Gabrielle Anwar, Tony Todd, Billy Dee Williams, William Forsythe, Margaret Colin, Charles Durning, Joanne Baron, Brooke Lewis, Miranda Kwok. Suspense/Mystery. Synopsis: A killer is systematically targeting members of a web chat room who seem to have no other connection to one another.

When you look at the cast in this one, you probably have a hard time believing its a smaller budget production, but it is, and that is not to criticize it in anyway. Frankly, the more I look at film the more I become convinced that a lot of the best stories on film come from the indie (by definition "small budget") film world. And, in terms of acting, you could not ask for more talent on a smaller film and the story is interesting as well.

What keeps iMurders from being the excellent film I feel it could have been is a slightly choppy script, a couple of underdeveloped characters/back story, and a couple of holes in a far fetched plot.

The story begins with a woman who catchers her husband in the middle of adulterous activity and what then seems to be (we hear it but don't see it) a murder. Then we skip forward about one year and the plot centers around a group of people who are either a member or close to someone who is an active member of a chat room on "facespace", an internet social networking group. (Some might think the combination of the names from the two most popular real life social networks is cheesy, but I kind of got a kick out of it).

We've got a cast of characters worthy of a fairly distinguished ensemble cast: the young professional woman who is new in her New Jersey town and kind of vague about her recent past (Terri Colombino); the eligible bachelor in her new complex who is an ex-cop (Frank Grillo); the nosy temporary landlord (Joanne Baron); on the other side of the country in northern CA we have the philandering college professor (William Forsythe The Devil's Rejects) , his wife who does not seem to have any clue (Margaret Colin Independence Day) ; in New York we have the slick talking personal injury lawyer (Billy Dee Williams Undercover Brother)  and his disfigured former model client (Gabriel Anwar) and in Boston an intense woman (Miranda Kwok) looking to avenge the death of her lover who relates her feelings to her shrink (Charles Durning Dog Day Afternoon)

Sound kind of far flung? Well, it is and it makes some of the story kind of hard to follow and when you figure it out, a little hard to buy. Anyway, like I said, these folks are connected by their participation in the chat room and one by one, someone is getting whacked. The problem is, these folks don't really know one another and aren't even sure that their fellow chat buddies are really being killed. Couldn't it all just be a part of the 'game'? Luckily enough, into the breach comes the FBI with two agents hot on the trail (Tony Todd Murder Set Pieces and Brooke Lewis). For a little added spice the female FBI agent is the sister of our ex-cop and, they both have a connection to the attorney who (big surprise!!!) turns out to be a slimeball.

I will say that it will likely be obvious to most who watch this who the killer is fairly early in the story. The problem is that experienced fans of this genre will spot the red herrings early on and, even if not, the red herrings are removed from the equation too soon. I'm not one who says a mystery flick where the mystery is a little obvious necessarily ruins the film, because I'm not sure that it does. However, I do have to say that I thought some of the characters and their back story(ies) were not developed very well. My opinion is that the film bites off more than it can chew with the number of characters we're supposed to get to know. In fairness, I think this was done to give us more suspects but it didn't necessarily work, we know full well the killer is one of a couple of people.

Also, I think most of you who watch would probably agree that a couple of characters and their side stories were unnecessary for the film. Specifically, I think the film would have been stronger without Billy Dee Williams and William Forsythe's characters. They both did well, Billy Dee is as cool as ever and I got a kick out of seeing William Forsythe in a different type of role for him as the pony tailed professor who sees himself as Lothario. I can certainly understand the desire to get these two actors some screen time, but I think it took from the primary story.

The dialogue is kind of choppy and "dorky" at times, plus some of the situations are just hard to buy, especially Brooke Lewis as an FBI agent and the choreography of the gun play near the end.

I think my main shout outs in terms of the acting have to go to Todd and Baron. Todd just nails it as the hulking FBI guy and Baron had the most depth of any character as well as the most interesting dialogue.

Like I said, there is no pretending you're not watching a small film when you see some of the set dressings and locations. The story and cast could have been enough to make this one a home run but it doesn't happen, primarily I think because of the script which was awkward due to all the different layers it tried to deal with.

But, by all means, don't steer clear of this one at all. Its good enough that you will be talking about it when its done no matter what you think of the ending, and when you get right down to it with suspense/mystery, that is all you can expect from the flick.

Directed by Ben Ross. Starring Chantelle Barry, Rob Benedict, Monica Gambee. Gore/Suspense. Synopsis: Two young actresses take an arrogant and womanizing horror director hostage in his own home and torment him in retribution for the way he has tormented others both onscreen and offscreen.

Now, the box cover alone is going to start the heart of any true gore movie fan to fluttering. But, know this going in, this flick, in my humble opinion, is not really a horror film, its a suspense (or psychological thriller, if you will) with enough gore to qualify for the genre but not really all that much gore when you compare it to other pure gorefests like Hostel or The Hills Run Red. So, you gore hounds, you've been fairly warned, the torture and blood you will see here multiplied by two is equal to the first 3 1/2 minutes of a Saw flick.

But, I've got be honest with you, I kind of liked this one though I realize many will not. Its not only a lower budget flick but has that feel, something I like but realize not all people do, especially the type of film fans who believe ever flick they see should blow them away with incredible CGI and/or do something that has never, ever, been done on film before.

The theme in Call Back, good old fashioned revenge, is nothing new (there isn't anything like that under the sun, right?) but it is certainly something we can all relate to at some level. The plot is simple and straightforward, if a tad unbelievable...our antagonist is a self absorbed horror movie director (Rob Benedict State Of Play)  who is looking for his next scream queen. We see from the outset that he is not very politic in his assessment of those actresses who don't fit what he is looking for, telling his assistant that one young actress from Russia (Chantale Berry) "doesn't speak English well" and is probably "a slut".

He thinks he finds what he is looking for in Meadow (Monica Gambee) and he definitely wants to hire her...the only problem being that her "scream test" was easily the worst of the bunch. So, why is he willing to work with her to improve, coincidentally enough for him to invite her to his spacious home for a little practice in a different, more calm enviroment? Well, it seems that this is kind of a habit of his, inviting actresses back to his place and, if I may use the phrase, putting them through their paces.

Now, some of the more cynical among you likely think he has ulterior motives and, believe it or not, you're right. In fact, he wants to partake in a little "celebration of the flesh" (made that term up myself, what do you think?). But, it doesn't get that far, as Meadow has something else in mind...specifically, giving the director a taste of his own medicine.

She's not alone, as it turns out the Russian girl is Meadow's girlfriend, and I mean that in the literal sense of that word. After surprising him with a blow to the head, he is tied up and tortured by these two lovely young ladies.

Why are they doing this, you might be asking yourself Ahhh, that is a question that was racing through my simple mind during the majority of the movie but I will tell you that it is answered definitively in the movie but I can't really tell you without being the proverbial spoiler. I will say this...we learn it is not the first time our illustrious filmmaker has pulled-or attempted to pull-this stunt. It just doesn't work out for him this time, to say the least.

Now you have the basic outline of the movie and you'll probably want me to give you an idea of why I like it. Is it because I like the images of two beautiful women making out with each other hot and heavy in between torturing their victim? I wouldn't say I liked that aspect, though I 've seen worse things on film. Is it because I think torture with a tweezer, playing tic-tac-toe with knives on flesh, or putting a severed finger in a blender is cool? Nah, can't say that, either.

What I can say is that the acting in this flick is surprisngly good. No disrespect to any of the three main characters, but just judging from the box cover, you're not likely to expect Oscar winning performances, and you don't get them here, but you do get good ones. Shockingly enough, this is, in my opinon, the rarest of animals" a lower budget gore flick that is character driven.    

Benedict is good here as the guy we like to dislike, after all we need to feel some level of antipathy towards him, don't we? But, not too much, and for most of the flick you'll probably be thinking "the guy is a turd, be he doesn't deserve this." Well, maybe, maybe not.

But, to me, Gambee really makes this flick work. She is completely believable as a borderline psycho/ tormented past victim of violence and I would pick up another flick just because she's in it based on her performance here.

Like I said, this won't be everybody's cup of tea, but no film is, and I think if you go into without too many preconceived ideas about what is should be, you just might really appreciate what it is.

Directed by Sean Tretta. Starring: Claudia Vargas, Shane Dean, Sharesse Hegna, Noah Todd, Michele Mousel, Kareem McRoy. Horror/Gore Synopsis: A drug addicted woman looks to avenge the death of her sister at the hands of the maker of snuff films and meets up with a group of people who believe they are going to witness a sacrafice of an innocent but who have been lured by a fanatic as bait for his sister, who has turned into a flesh eating mutant by a botched chemical experiment.

Okay, just by reading the somewhat unclear synopsis, you would probably say to yourself, "What the hell?" And, you'd be right, this one is a little far fetched and difficult to talk about intelligently. As a lover of the horror genre and small budget/indie flicks, I will always give flicks that incorporate both (though so much of contemporary horror/gore is by definition small budget) and this one had me at the box cover.

But, I must say, most of you who look at this likely will not like it. Death Factory: Blood Letting is apparently, kind of a sequel but not really, in that it incorporates a character from its forerunner, Death Factory, but is really a totally new story as opposed to a classic sequel.  Learned that is the director's commentary and just thought I'd share it in case some of you had seen the original.

Anyway, the plot is very difficult to follow, folks for several reasons. I'll list them for you, not necessarily in order of importance:

1) The plot is very poorly developed and not clearly presented through the dialogue
2) The plot doesn't make sense even in light of the suspension of disbelief we all have going into a horror movie
3) The constant heavy metal music thumping throughout the flick along with the irritating scraping noises in the ambient soundtrack make the film hard to hear, literally and figuratively. (No offense to metal fans, but if that type of music gives you a headache-like me-you seriously might want to give this one a pass for that reason alone)

Without a doubt, the main point of this flick is to get into scenes of gore and blood splattering and that mission is certainly accomplished, but many of us need some form of build up, character depth to some degree, and a logical progression with the context of the film to really enjoy the movie.

None of that is present here, we get stereotypical characters (e.g., the neo-Nazi, the BDSM couple, etc.) who are there for no other reason than to cut sliced and diced; we get some obligatory skin and a brief girl on girl scene, again standard fare for low budget horror. Our protagonists/psychopathic killers are over the top an unexplained to us: the Manson look-a-like and his flesh eating sister with the razor sharp teeth.

 But, in this movie everything just feels thrown in, what we really have here is a collection of scenes-some unintelligible-more than a story.

Now, you might think I've been hard on this flick, and I have, but you will notice it is not in the "Dud" category. There is one reason for that. After listening to the director's commentary (frankly, the metal soundtrack I mentioned was so loud and distracting I needed to listen to the commentary to even vaguely follow what was going on in many parts), I realized that this flick was the definition of "low budget". I believe that films are graded on a curve because that's how we enjoy them. You don't pop in Schindler's List when you just what to veg out and have a few laughs and you don't pop in 40 Year Old Virgin when you want something deep and meaningful. By the same token, I don't slam a movie made for almost no money in the same way I would a similar movie made with some financial backing.

Now, most of you who are film buffs and/or have listened to director's commentary know that it is standard for them to talk about limited money or no money, even when they have millions of dollars, such as in Murder Set Pieces, in which a 2 million dollar budget still resulted in a poor film. Also, another pretty good film I reviewed recently, Donkey Punch, has the filmmakers on the commentary talking about the limits of making their movie for "less than a million pounds". So, its all relative.

In this flick, most of the actors were not paid, some had never acted before, and Tretta not only directed the flick but actually was his own DP as he shot the movie himself with one camera. That takes some serious "want to" and I take my hat off to anyone with the drive to do it. Plus, when you compare this to some other films that aren't very good, its not even close to the worst low budget flick you could ever see and, despite my own sensibilities, some might actually like their gore completely gratuitous and soundtrack pulsating heavy metal to drown out the dialogue.

I won't insult your intelligence by telling you its a good film or that I think most will like it. But, grading on the low budget curve, its not a dud. If you see it and think I'm wrong, let me know.             

Directed by Robert Luketic. Starring Katherine Heigl, Gerard Butler, Bree Turner, Eric Winter, Jesse Goins, Nick Searcy, Cheryl Hines. Comedy, Romance.

Guest Reviewer:  Rollie Rankin


Synopsis: Abby Richter, a beautiful, independent television producer (Katherine Heigl) finds herself the boss of Mike Chadway, a footloose, womanizing, straight-shooting cable television personality (Gerard Butler).  Mike's opinion of Abby is that she's prudish and controlling, while Abby's opinion of Mike is that he's a womanizing idiot.  The two end up working together where Mike uses his "ugly truth" about men to help Abby land the "man of her dreams."  Through the process of helping Abby come out of her shell, Mike finds he's falling for the beautiful, but controlling TV producer.

I haven't seen any movies with either of these actors, but I thought Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler were quite brilliant in this movie.  Katherine is absolutely believable as the uptight intelligent beauty, Abby, and Gerard is hilarious and charming as the off-the-wall Mike.  I loved this movie!  I normally hate romantic comedies (especially if they have Hugh Grant in them....yuk!), but this one was presented as a bit of reality rather than the normal fantasy/fairytale that most romatic comedies portray.

I laughed through most of the movie because much of the humor was so relateable.  The womanizing, good-looking man who just wants to use a girl...reality.  The beautiful, independent professional woman having a hard time finding the right man for her because of the fairy-tale ideals that she thinks she needs in a man...reality.  Put that together with the storyline here, and it's a hilarious, realistic look at how a foe-ship, turns to friendship, that turns into relationship.  Amazing what a little passion and realism can do to bring two people together.

Great lines in the movie.  Full of funny moments (restaurant vibrater scene, for example, a little copy from "When Harry Met Sally" perhaps?).  Chuckles and realizations of your own life.  Great movie...definitely recommended. :)