Red State (2011, R)

Kevin Smith as a writer/director tends to be a guy that you either love or hate, but this film is pretty different from any of his films I've seen in the past.  I know I had a blast watching Mallrats and Dogma, got some enjoyment out of the Clerks movies, could take a pass on Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back (though I find the people who like Will Ferrell movies tend to enjoy this one: it's the same sort of silly and it's fun to anticipate the silliness on a second viewing), and I absolutely hated Gigli (with the exception of the one scene with Al Pacino).  However from any non-film appearances (such as An Evening With Kevin Smith) I find him to be a coarse, insulting and unpleasant person (as opposed to his movies which are coarse also but the insults are witty and enjoyable).  Red State is a horror movie, Smith's first forray into that genre as far as I know, but it changes gears to more of an action(/drama?) in the second half.

Sleeping Dogs Lie (2006, R)

Bobcat Goldthwait is a strange man, and he wrote and directed this film.  I tend to like strange idea movies, and this one sounded like it would be a good one, but unfortunately almost all of the dialogue struck me as uninspired and the actions of the characters as lame despite the interesting concept.  The Netflix description of the movie indicates that the story is about the main character revealing a secret about herself to her fiance at the encouragement of her friends and family.  The issue of being honest or not, especially when the secret is a bombshell and being told-or-not to a (prospective) spouse, can make for a really interesting story, but this one was just disappointing compared to what it could have accomplished.  The online description tactfully left out the fact (revealed in the opening monologue, so this is not a spoiler) that her secret is that one lonely and curious night in college she fellated her dog.  She's not surprisingly disgusted by it and adamantly against telling anyone, but honestly: people do crazy things in college; it's a time of experimentation and this was one of the least harmful things she could have done (albeit taboo).  She could have gotten involved in a violent lifestyle or done drugs that harm her body, she could have gotten a full-face tattoo that would make future job interviews potentially awkward, but no.

The first half of the movie my face was in a constant mild cringe because of the steady awkwardness of the characters and situations (this means that Goldthwait accomplished his goal, not that he failed in it).  I don't find this appealing in a film, but you might.  The nearest state that I like is a quirky strangeness (I loved the first half of the series Twin Peaks, for example).  After she dropped the bomb, the awkward cringe left and I was just disappointed in the characters.  The highlight of the film by far was Brian Posehn's (television series such as Mr. Show, The Sarah Silverman Program, Reno 911, Tom Goes To The Mayor, and Just Shoot Me!) character, friend of the main character's brother.  His awkwardness was a distinctly different flavor that could be more thoroughly described as dim-witted, foot-in-the-mouth, good-natured charm.  His few appearances were a breath of fresh air, and I really liked him.  If you like the awkward tone of The Cable Guy (but dont'  mind that this has no action to it) or maybe Punch Drunk Love (which I found unpleasant but good) then you might like this, but I expect you'd be a small population.  For me I'd give it 1-1.5 out of 5 stars because it gave me so little entertainment in exchange for my time.  I almost never turn off a movie partway through because I find that the movies I like the least in the first half tend to have at least some redeeming quality in the second half... but if that was not my practice, I would have turned this off after about 30 minutes.

Girl, Interrupted (1999, R)

This movie is kind of a One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, minus Cool Hand Luke, with a generation-x twist (the generation, not the terrible movie).  OK, I guess that description requires familiarity with a few other movies to make sense, so I'll try again.  It's a period piece taking place in the 1960's, though with rare exception it feels very much like a '90's movie: the tone and most of the wardrobe and dialogue feel gen-x'y, but one nurse's eyeglasses, one campaign sign in a front yard, and a couple of "current events" named put it in the '60's.  It takes place largely in a privately run mental hospital/clinic, specifically in the women's ward, and it's largely about what life is like in the hospital and generally for anyone who feels they don't belong (so it's a very gen-x teen [an extinct breed at this point] friendly film).  The movie is also incredibly full of "it girls" from the last couple decades.  Wynona Rider (Edward Scissorhands, Bram Stoker's Dracula) plays the lead, a recent high school graduate whose depression and borderline personality disorder ("borderline" is the incredibly non-useful name for a specific personality disorder, not to mean that it is borderline to another disorder) give her troubles.  At the hospital that she is convinced to check herself into, she runs into characters played by Angelina Jolie (Tomb Raider, Pushing Tin), Brittany Murphy (Love And Other Disasters, Uptown Girls), Clea Duvall (The Grudge, the television series Heroes), Elizabeth Moss (Get Him To The Greek) and Angela Bettis (Drones, the 2002 remake of Carrie).  Among the hospital staff are the head nurse played by Whoopi Goldberg (Sister Act, Ghost) in what is probably my favorite of her roles yet (she tends to be a bit too over-the-top for my taste, but she was the intelligent firm-ground for this film) and staff psychologist played by Jeffrey Tambor (Hellboy, television series Arrested Development) who I was worried would be a lot creepier character than he was.

The film focused on the interactions between the different characters (Jolie's character was by far the strongest personality in the film, and I'm pretty sure this was what put her on the map for Hollywood.  She was at once everyone's enemy and everyone's best friend; the Avatar of Chaos as opposed to Goldberg's Order), and about Rider's character arc hopefully ending in functional mental health.  While the beginning of the film had a bit of what some might call teenage whininess (which I must admit bugged me a little, especially when she's writing in her journal with different scripts for each line like it's artistic or something [that's a technique for scrapbooks and ransom notes dammit!]), the story overall was pretty good and built strong character relationships.  We got to see a pretty good spread of mental disorders, causes and reactions (and as graduated student of psychology, this was kind of interesting for me [there were some discrepancies with the methods of modern treatment and the rights of patients which I think were due to the different era of the story taking place, rather than poor writing]).  It's not a feel-good movie, but it does have its happy moments.  If you liked One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest or to an extent Cool Hand Luke, then you should like this film.  If you don't like watching a movie and wishing the main characters would get over themselves and get through their s#!t, then this is not for you.  For me it was about 4 out of 5 stars.  I should add that the song Downtown is currently stuck in my head due to repetition in the movie, but I don't find that altogether unpleasant.

Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry (1974, PG)

Verbally referenced in the first half of Death-Proof (one of the two mock-exploitation films from his Grindhouse collaboration with Robert Rodriguez) and having similarites to several aspects of the second half of that film, we can be sure that Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry is one of director Quentin Tarantino's many influences.  The big name actor in this movie is Peter Fonda (Easy Rider, Ghost Rider) as one half of the title characters (hint: he's not Mary).  The story starts with Larry and his friend Deke about to embark on a scheme that I could tell was no-good despite their tight-lipped vagueness.  Seriously I had them pegged as scumbags and disliked them from the beginning.  We also meet the trashy and loud Mary who gets herself insinuatede into Larry and Deke's plot.  It's mostly a car chase movie as the police try to catch the main characters and I found myself rooting for the police most of the time (the cop in charge of the manhunt also posesses several qualities not ideal for an officer of the law, but his actions didn't show a disregard for any bystanders unfortunate enough to cross his path... unlike our criminal anti-heroes).  While near the end enough conversations took place to where I could at least identify with the anti-heroes as characters, the only one I found myself "liking" (I'll go so far as to call it that) was Deke who was at least professional and his laconic nature revealed a certain maturity.  Also Deke (played by Adam Roark) reminds me of today's Alec Baldwin in face and in voice, so he's got that going for him.

Most of the car chase stunts turned me off, not because they were unimpressive (in fact, I shudder to think how many stunt-drivers were harmed in the making of this film) but because of the aforementioned disregard for life/health/wellbeing that cauesd the characters to think it was a good idea to do most of these things.  I imagine someone who loves fast cars and fast driving would warm up to the characters and the movie much faster than I would (I've gotten plenty of speeding tickets in the past, and it sucks[!], so I try to drive safely these days).  But I do have to admit there were some cool ideas in how to evade and in how to catch, and I did find the ending quite satisfying.  The target audience is pretty specific for this movie: gearheads who like car chase movies.  Also a film buff might have interest in seeing the movie, or it's an ok movie to have playing in the background at a party.  But if you're not one of thoses groups you could give this one a pass.  For me it's about 2 out of 5 stars: I didn't dig it all that much, but I can't say I hate it either because I got enough enjoyment to make up for my ire.

The Gate (1987, PG-13)

Apparently this movie is a cult favorite, but I was unfamiliar with it.  Though I wish I had grown up watching it at sleepovers!  The special effects are non-realistic by today's standards, but a lot of the effects and images they chose to employ were indeed very creative and impressive.  To an extent, the VFX reminded me of Ray Harryhausen's work (Clash Of The Titans from 1981, The Golden Voyage Of Sinbad from 1973).  And the effects are darned scary if you can accept them as realistic.  The main character is played by a very young Stephen Dorff (Blade) and he accidentally opens a portal to Hell in his back yard.  He tries to deal with the situation with his best friend, and his older sister is also a main character and several of her friends make appearances as well (one of which is a young Kelly Rowan who also played the mom in the series The OC).

I like that they took the time to flesh out characters and their back stories more thoroughly than they had to (the best friend's home situation, for example, was not essential to the plot but it did improve things).  There was a loving relationship between the brother and sister, but there was some bickering involved as well (though most of the bickering and name-calling was between the boys and the sister's friends).  I like that the relationship was multi-dimensional like that.  I really liked this movie and wish this was one I grew up with.

I'd say the ideal audience would be kids who are old enough to want to see scary and gross stuff (some of the monsters and wounds were indeed gross) but young enough that they are amused by the characters calling each other names.  The main character was around 12, and I find that many movies tend to target an audience at or slightly below the age of the  main character (if the main character is not an adult).  Or if you're an adult like myself who likes to see different movies, I think this one was well done.  On the other hand, if you dont' like movies starring kids or if you need current era realistic visual effects then you probably won't like The Gate.

Arthur (1981, PG)

Not to be confused with the 2011 remake starring Russel Brand, this original version stars Dudley Moore (Santa Claus [1985], Bedazzled [1967, not to be confused with the 2000 remake starring Brendan Fraser]).  It's labelled as a comedy, but at the first scene I was worried that it would be a loose use of the term because it seemed more tragic than funny.  Sure, Arthur's every word was a joke or witticism of some sort (punctuated by uncontrollable laughter at his own jokes), but this was due to the fact that he was constantly drunk.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a drink or several on occasion myself, but a chronic state of inebriation is a result of and cause of tragedy, so it made me sad to see it in the film.  Fortunately, this scene was just setting up the status quo so that the rest of the film could get into the characters and situations, and allow us to see improvements in his mood and blood alcohol content.  The only reason he is still alive with this lifestyle is the fact that his family is obscenely wealthy.  I imagine that this movie pretty much chronicles what Bruce Wayne's life would have been like if his parents had not been killed inspiring him to become Batman.  Arthur even has his own faithful companion butler named Hobson (imagine Alfred Pennyworth but with the caustic wit cranked up to 11). 

I had seen Santa Claus (the movie, not the man) numerous times growing up, and that was the only film from which I would recognize Dudley Moore, so my ears perked up whenever there was a North Pole-y reference.  Once a character said he looked "like a Christmas elf" (in the Santa movie, he played the head elf, reporting directly to Claus himself) and on more than one occasion Arthur sang a Christmas song.  I would have thought this was a reference to the lead actor's prior roles, except for the fact that this film predates Santa Claus by 4 years.  Curious. 

Back to the story at hand.  At an upscale clothing store, Arthur meets a woman (shoplifter) who has enough spunk to keep his interest (and she's not even a prostitute like the other women he spends time with!).  This firebrand is named Linda (played by Liza Minelli, also from Cabaret and some episodes of Arrested Development), and to me this movie would be nothing without her.  She's strong, clever, confident, and funny.  Without spoiling too much of the plot, I'll just say that the conflict arises as Arthur is given an ultimatum by his family that he will be cut off from the family money unless he marries the daughter of their rich colleague (she's a fine girl too, but he has no interest in her): he doesn't want to settle down at all at first, and then later he finds the one woman he can't stop thinking about and it's not his intended.  But the reason to watch the film is not because of the conflict or elaborate plot (it's not elaborate) but to see the a) interactions between the characters and b) the witty dialogue.  If you're in a giggly mood and will laugh at any witty line you hear, then turn on this movie immediately!  If banter doesn't do it for you, then don't bother.  Myself, I was kind of put off by the lame comments/jokes early on, but I warmed up to them as the film continued.  Most of the lines were merely chucke-worthy, but there was one point in particular that I had to pause the movie so I wouldnt miss the next line because I was laughing so hard.  Maybe it just tickled my funny bone, but I thought it was great.

C.H.U.D. (1984, R)

I'd first heard of this movie when it was given out as a door-prize at last year's B-Fest (a 24 hour "B movie" marathon held at Northwestern University annually.  I went to school elsewhere but the event sounded way too fun to pass up), and the title grabbed me as a "killer B" (essence of B movie, fun for a fan of the genre).  The title of this movie is also referenced in an episode of Angel, so if you intend to catch all of the references in that series (a feat to be sure) then you'll want to add this film to your homework.

Partway through the film, the main characters are informed by government officials that this is and acronym for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers.  Basically radioactive monsters have been attacking people out of the sewers and homeless sewer-dwellers have been disappearing (and surprise! the police haven’t been making a heroic effort to help).  The the first main characters we're introduced to are a magazine/freelance photographer named George (played by John Heard from Home Alone and Big), his wife, police Captain Bosch and "Reverend" A.J. who runs a soup-kitchen and works with the homeless (played by Daniel Stern, the narrator in The Wonder Years series, also in Home Alone).  My favorite characters (the most sympathetic characters) were A.J. followed by the wife and Bosch... pretty much the inverse order of appearance and of seeming importance to the plot (though AJ's screen time increases later in the film). 

Overall I was expecting it to be much lower quality and more campy than it was.  While radioactive monsters in the sewer attacking people does indeed qualify as camp, a lot of the dialogue was actually reasonable.  The production quality was pretty decent for the era, but the fact that many of the scenes took place in sewers and tenements or normal office buildings (easy to construct or go to) might have masked a lower budget.  If you like creature features, this one doesn't have as much of the creature as some you may like but the movie itself is solid enough that it should satisfy you.  If you're not a fan of 70's-80's monster movies, then don't bother (though it is kind of cool to see the dad and the thief from Home Alone working together at a younger age).

Lo (2009, NR)

OK, not what I expected.  Somehow from the cover of this movie I was expecting something along the lines of The Ring or The Grudge, and possibly a foreign (Japanese) film.  It was more like a cross between Faust, It's A Wonderful Life, Dante's Inferno, Hellboy, and an episode of Angel or Buffy The Vampire Slayer.  With a line from The Shining (1980) in one scene for good measure.  It was an indie film that could almost be done as a play.  I'm pretty sure the the vast majority of the budget was spent on the demons' makeup.  It's a closed-room movie, which means it's mostly focused on character development and interactions, which I like.  The characters (especially demons) are quirky and slightly comical though not knee-slapping funny.

The story is about a guy named Justin whose girlfriend was dragged to hell by a demon and he summons a demon named Lo (title character) to try to get her back.  The story's location is restricted not just to Justin's apartment, but to the pentagram he inscribed on the floor of his apartment (if he "breaks the circle" by moving any part of himself outside of it then his ward of protection from the demons is voided).  The film starts off with him finishing the circle and casting the spell, so they wasted no time there.  The back story of the two lovers and their romance is portrayed through flashbacks as Justin converses with Lo.  Justin was played by Ward Roberts, who I don't think I'd seen before but he kind of reminded me of Milo Ventimiglia (Heroes and Gilmore Girls television series), and the girl (April) was played by Sarah Lassez, who I was also unfamiliar with but she looks kind of like Chloe Moretz (Kick Ass, Let Me In) plus 10 years (which means she's adorable).

I was able to figure out part of the ending shortly before, but not all of it.  I think it was pretty clever especially at the end, though I can imagine the earlier parts of the film annoyging people if the dialoge was not to their taste/sense of humor.  Basically if you liked the Buffy and Angel shows, watch this and pretend it's a low-budget not-quite-Whedon spin-off... you'll dig it.  It's kind of hard to say what other movie it's like... scroll up and check out the list of movies in the first paragraph: if you like that idea, then you'll like this.  It's a creative take on a romance and on a horror, and the mash-up pretty much makes it right up my alley, but if you like your movies to do one thing and do it well then this might not be for you.

Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark (2010, R)

The title is a lie!  DO be afraid of the dark (at least if you are a character in this movie).
The story is about a little girl going to live with her dad (played by Guy Pierce, from Memento and The Time Machine) and his girlfriend (played by Katie Holmes, from Batman Begins and the Dawson's Creek television series) in the huge stately manor they are restoring (dad is an architect and the girlfriend is an interior designer).  The prologue scene establishes that the furnace-looking grate in the basement is home to little gnome things that like to eat teeth, especially those of children.  Fun times.  An amusing Easter egg in this film that I'm sure I never would have picked up on if I hadn't studied up on paganism a bit in college is that the markings over the basement grate are Elder Futhark (ancient runes) that equate to the Roman letters for the English words "Be Afraid".  I guess Guy Pierce doesn't read ancient Norse.  Guillermo Del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy) was a screenwriter and producer on this film and that was apparent (in a good way): the engravings and detailing on the set, the darkly  rich color schemes, the child who encounters supernatural forces that might seem friendly but are instead sinister (Pan's Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), the appearance of the creatures.  The stylistic visuals were not as overt as in Hellboy II, but just added to the richness of the scenes.

I liked some of the subtleties in storytelling.  Example: the dad greets the daughter with a smile and all the standard phrases a dad would say to try to endear a kid but lacks warmth and the teddy bear is the only one to say "I love you" (don't worry, the bear has a computer chip, not a demon).  Whether the audience is conscious of it or not, you can tell there's something missing in the human interaction.  The movie relied on worry, terror and pain for the characters, not simple jump-scares.  I really liked it for a horror movie, but keep in mind it's not like Friday the 13th style.  It doesn't have any nudity and no foul language sticks out in my mind, but it does have blood and some painful looking wounds.

If you like intelligent horror movies (almost a thriller, but not quite), this is great.  While I haven't seen much of Katie Holmes on film, I tend to enjoy everything I see Guy Pierce is in (due to the film itself, not necessarily because of him), so that's a good vote for this movie.  If you don't like yucky wounds, or if you don't like to be scared (or if you don't like movies with kids in the main cast, though this was not a dumb kid), then of course don't watch this movie.
On a personal note, my neighbors keep propping the front door open so now there are a bunch of little bugs in my apartment, and when you look directly at them they look kind of like fireflies but without the glowing, but when you only see them out of the corner of your eye after watching this movie they look like little goblins that are going to eat your teeth.  I'm going to bed now.

Translyvania 6-5000 (1985, PG)

OK this is a horror/comedy that barely qualifies for the horror part, but it does have a mummy, vampire, Frankenstein monster, hunchback, etc.  It's a slapstick gag-humor saturated comedy befitting of the decade in which it was made (the beloved '80's).  The title stems from the number you would give to a telephone operator (back in the day) in order to reach the hotel where much of the film takes place.  The level/type of humor is something between Roxanne (1987) and Jane Austen's Mafia! (1998, which had nothing to do with the author of Pride and Prejudice).

It starts off with a serious reporter working for a hack tabloid (played by Jeff Goldblum, also from Jurassic Park and The Fly remake) teamed up with a gullible need-to-please reporter at the same tabloid (played by Ed Begley Jr. from St. Elsewhere and several other television series).  They are sent to Transylvania to investigate a Frankenstein sighting (a curious location as Frankenstein was supposed to be vaguely Italian and Transylvania was the historic home of Dracula).  The mayor of the town in which they investigate is played by the iconic Jeffrey Jones (Howard The Duck, Ferris Bueler's Day Off).  Goldblum is naturally hesitant to believe the crazy crap he hears from his partner, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that his skepticism did not prevent him from following along in the pursuit of facts related to their case.  The hotel staff consist of: Michael Richards (Kramer from the Seinfeld television series), who is intent on gag humor (banana peels, etc); and a married couple of hunchbacks, the wife in which was clumsy, silly, and completely lovingly devoted to her husband.  While she annoyed him, I couldn't help but fall in love with her for loving him so much.  She was played by Carol Kane (The Princess Bride ["I'm not a witch, I'm your wife!  But I'm not even sure I want to be that anymore!"], Adams Family [film versions]).  A hot young Gina Davis (Beetlejuice, The Fly remake) plays a vampire woman with cleavage down to her navel who appeared at quite random moments.

Don't worry, Vampirella: I won't struggle.

The plot of the story is almost incidental to the gag humor (which, don't get me wrong, is hilarious if you're in a mood to be receptive to it).  While parts of the end were only mildly clever, there was one part that warmed me inside and made me glad to see it.  If you're in a grumpy mood, don't bother, you'll hate this.  But if you're in a silly mood or in your cups with your friends, this can be a darned fun time.  I must have been in the right mood because laughed quite a bit throughout and I enjoyed the movie.  For me it's good but still not quite awesome.

Albino Alligator (1996, R)

This film had almost no special effects, very few scene locations (most of it was in a room and the street outside) and a very small cast (though almost all of them were famous actors), and all of the work went into the story.  Some of the lines were cheesy, but others were pretty clever and I liked most of the turns the story took (not to say that they were happy turns, but good story material).  The first few minutes of the movie were well spent establishing the basics of the situation and it was done in a very time-efficient way.  Soon we get to the part where the rest of the movie takes place.  The premise from this point on is that a trio of criminals (attempted thieves fleeing a crime) enter a New Orleans bar at closing time and hold the few staff and patrons hostage.  It's largely a tension-building story as each of them has different motivations, concerns and things they would think to do or say.

The film was directed by famed actor Kevin Spacey (The Usual Suspects, Shrink).  The trio of criminals consist of a weak leader played by Matt Dillon (Rumble Fish, There's Something About Mary), a sociopath played by William Fichtner (The Longest Yard [2010], Contact), and a level-headed semi-intelligent man played by (one of my personal favorites) Gary Sinise (Impostor, Reindeer Games).  The bar owner is played by M. Emmet Walsh (Blade Runner, Little Big Man) who I always find charming on film, and the bartender/waitress is played by Faye Dunaway (Bonny & Clyde, The Thomas Crown Affair [1968]).  Dunaway's character talked back to and mocked the newly-arrived crooks, which I imagine was supposed to make her look sassy and/or strong, but I thought it was unamusing, annoying and supremely unintelligent.  Later she mellowed out and became a very worthwhile character to the story.  Among the bar patrons were Viggo Mortensen (A History Of Violence, The Lord Of The Rings trilogy) and John Spencer (The West Wing television series).  The law officer in charge outside on the street was played by Joe Mantegna (Thinner, !Three Amigos!).  It turns out Albino Aligator is not the name of the bar, as I had presumed, but rather a reference that is made clear about midway through the story.  It's properly tense and it makes sense.

I tend to like closed-room movies.  I don't know if that's a real term or not (I know "closed-room mystery" is a term, and this idea is similar but different), but if most or all of a story takes place in a small area and is based largely on tension and human interactions, it requires and displays more storytelling skill.  Some famous examples of this would be Speed (takes place on a bus) Glengary Glen Ross (takes place in and around an office) and Phone Booth (takes place in a desert... just kidding, it takes place in a phone booth).  Some you may or may not be familiar with are Devil (2010, on an elevator), Night Train (2009, on a... oh, you get it) and The Killing Jar (2010).  Albino Alligator is a pretty solid story of this type, so if you like tense human-interaction/conflict stories, you should like this.  However, though Alligator was probably the "better" film, I think I got more enjoyment out of The Killing Jar: it has many similarities and I think is just a little neater (especially at the end, though the ending is less creative) and also has several face's you'll recognize, but probably not as many names other than Michael Madesn [Kill Bill, Sin City and probably 100 more small roles that any given person has seen]).  Keep in mind that while Alligator leaves almost all of the gore to your imagination, Killing Jar shows it.

The Karate Kid (1984, PG)

Until just now, I'm pretty sure I'm the only '80's kid that hadn't seen this movie (and I'm sure I just lost a few friends by saying that).  I had seen the 2010 remake starring Jackie Chan and Jaden Smith which I did enjoy and was today (pleasantly?) surprised how many parallels there were between the two versions of the film despite the differences: remake took place in China as opposed to California, it used Kung-Fu rather than Karate, and the main character was younger.  In my defense, I was already aware of some of the main cultural references from the original film: the line "sweep the leg", "wax on, wax off", and the song "you're the best around".  Though I now have a greater understanding of them.  This was sort of a homework movie for me.

In both versions of the film, I was bracing myself to dislike the main character who was a kid (not particularly cerebral) who gets into trouble (fights) with other kids who are part of a violent/borderline-evil marital arts dojo.  In both cases, I found myself liking the Kid a lot more than I thought I would because his shortcomings were due to him being a kid.  The original film stars Ralph Macchio (from... well, he's most famous for this film, though he was also in My Cousin Vinny [he was Vinny's cousin]) falling for a young Elisabeth Shue (Adventures In Babysitting, Leaving Las Vegas) and falling into the bad graces of her DB (unsavory fellow) ex-boyfriend who is part of that nasty dojo mentioned earlier.  The karate jerks repeatedly harm him until Macchio's local repair man helps him out.  I found the early parts of the film a little gut-wrenching as the Kid is in a bad situation and has to try to avoid the violence, but later the story got into full swing and it was a pleasant ride.

While I'm sure my nostalgia-infected cohort would say otherwise, I think I actually liked the second one a little more than the original.  Don't get me wrong, I liked them both.  The original was... well... original, and is definitely iconic.  But for an audience that has seen neither, and if you can only see one of them, I'd suggest the newer iteration (which is just a little more modern and relatable for that reason).  If you liked Rocky, you'll like this film (original).  But who am I kidding, if you haven't seen this then I imagine you haven't seen Rocky either.  Especially near the end it's a sports movie, so you like those you should like this.  If you haven't seen a "sports movie" but don't like the idea of them, don't judge: they're often better than a nerd might think (and I use the term "nerd" not in a derogatory way, but in the first person).

Dead Heat (1988, R)

When I started watching this movie, I didn't know the title was a pun on zombies.  Honestly, I'm not quite sure if this film is a caricature of several types of movies or just a hilarious example of them.  I'm think it's the caricature though.  It starts off as a buddy cop movie with one clean-cut detective and his partner the meatball musclehead.  I like that despite their personality differences, they do get along as partner cops should.  Their actions piss the heck out of their captain a la Lethal Weapon and if you're in the right mood when you see it, you'll get a big kick out of their flippancy.  They end up investigating a case that involves reanimated criminals and horror(?)/action/comedy(?) stuff ensues.  A lot of the lines are stereotypical film dialogue to the point that it would be trite if taken seriously.

Treat Williams was the only actor that looked familiar to me, though not from any particular role in the past (he played the clean-cut cop), and I'm pretty sure very few people will have heard of this film.  The meatball cop looks like Mark Hamill (Star Wars) on steroids.  It's one of those metatexual self-aware movies (but again, not obnoxiously so, IMHO).  The tone was consistent throughout the film in terms of dark and/or satire humor (but not over the top), and level of action, so I don't think liking any one part will cause you to feel let down by any other part of the film.  This movie has the humor style of a B-horror/comedy (a lot like Army of Darkness), but itself is more of an action/comedy with horror elements.  So if you don't like that sort of of movie (a movie about movies), then this is not for you... but if you like the satire/caricature and a crazy romp, this is a good time.

My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (2010, PG)

Hot dang, I was pleasantly surprised with this movie.  Alyssa Milano (Charmed television series), who I've had a crush on pretty much ever since I was old enough to have a crush (oh man, I want to bear her children... no wait, the other way around), meets and starts dating two guys on the same day: one is an aspiring writer and the other is a successful advertising executive.  The ad exec was played by Michael Landes, and he looked really familiar to me though I couldn't place it; looking it up now, he played Jimmy Olsen in Lois & Clark: The New Adventures Of Superman, but I don't know if that's it or maybe he just has one of those faces that look familiar.

The aspiring writer is the character the film began with and the beau I found myself rooting for (the non-rich, fiction fan, etc), though they both seemed to be good guys, were clever/witty and cared about Milano.  Milano's character was roommates with her brother who was played by Tom Lenk (Andrew from Buffy and one episode of Angel), who added his own awkward charm to the film.  The first few date scenes were more worthwhile to watch than later ones because they had more dialogue and character development, though I imagine a woman would like the chick-flicky qualities of the later dates more than I did.  She eventually had to make a decision and though the ending looked like it was going to be nauseatingly predictable, it turned out to be more creative, and then way more creative than I would have thought!

For a guy watching a romance (it was billed as a comedy, though wouldn't call it that overly much), this was one of the best I've seen.  Ladies, expect your guy to groan: it's his duty.  Guys, this is not bad, especially if you're a writer type who likes to see one of  your people kissing a girl (groan out loud and fist-bump me silently).  But keep in mind that the turn at the end totally makes it all worth it.


Parts of the movie made me go like this.

Waxwork II: Lost In Time (1992, R)

This one picks up immediately at the conclusion of the first film, so I suggest watching them back to back (it's been a while since I've seen the original Waxwork, so if they had changed the actors for the main characters, I wouldn't have noticed.  I'm pretty sure they didn't btw.)  I also suggest being a couple drinks deep when watching this film so you can get into the silliness.  The original film is about a wax museum in which the displays are also a portal to the world and scene depicted in the diorama (werewolf attack, vampire's castle, Jack the Ripper attack in London).

In the sequel, the characters find it necessary to make use of a device that can open similar portals (bringing about the title "lost in time").  It's not a comedy per-se, but several of the scenes have humorous aspects in a horror-not-taken-too-seriously sort of way.  One of the other worlds the protagonists arrive in is themed after a '50's pulp style ghost horror movie... so the scene is shot on black and white film.  A few bigger name actors pop up in the various worlds of the story: Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead, My Name Is Bruce [and cameo appearances in each of the Spider-Man trilogy]), Mirina Sirtis (Star Trek: The Next Generation), and David Carradine (Kill Bill, Kung Fu television series) were some that I noticed.  While each of their appearances was brief (sorry, Delta Dandy), I must say that Campbell's scene and his role itself was the best part of the film.

If you liked the first one, you should love the second.  If you haven't seen the first, you should be able to get by with just the second, but you may as well watch both.  If you like horror movies that have a cheese topping shall we say, then you're in for a treat.  If you don't like humor in your horror or horror in your humor, if you need high production value and big name stars, this movie's not for you.

The Frightening (2002, R)

Available to stream on Netflix through 10/18/12.
Not to be confused with The Frighteners starring Michael J. Fox.  This is very much a B movie.  When I saw the opening sequence the first thing I noticed was that the visual quality was lacking but the scene was about a decently done chase/pursuit.  As the movie continued, I saw some abysmal acting and some special effects you'd be likely to see from a good high school student film.  The script was not overly clever, but I must admit the end of the film did indeed have a bit of cleverness to it that let me leave with a certain satisfaction.  This is indeed a "good bad movie".  If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you probably won't like it.  But the film has that certain quality that brings charm to a B movie (maybe the cast and crew just care more about it despite the limited budget?).

The story takes place at Hallows End High School (though the start of the word "hallows" is cut off from the sign the first few times it's shown on screen), where misfit students (and teachers) tend to get murdered by a pack of guys with black clothes stocking caps and sunglasses (at night, naturally).  The school administration is surprisingly nonchalant about this.  The main character is a guy who just moved into town and meets two groups of kids that don't like each other but both seem to think he's pretty ok: the wrestling team and a group of goth/punk misfits.  Kind of a standard slasher movie.

It's easy for me to peg the target audience on this one.  If you like B-horror movies (like me), this is a pretty good one (not as laughable as many enjoy, but gets into itself). If you don't like B-movies, then stay far away from this one.

Scorched (2003, PG-13)

This film is available on Netflix streaming until 10/18/12.

Filled with big name actors, this was a tragically un-funny movie.  Nor were the serious events very interesting.  It's a heist/caper flick that revolves around a bunch of disgruntled bank employees (who do not collaborate).  At this point the story pretty much writes itself, so I can't say much more without spoiling it.  The bank staff are played by Alicia Silverstone (Clueless, Batman And Robin), Woody Harrelson (Zombieland, Cheers television series), and Paulo Costanzo (Road Trip, Joey television series [spinoff of Friends]).  While I like a lot of the actors, none of them really shine, and with rare exception the gags were thoroughly bland.  Most of the moments that made me laugh (brief moments, I assure you) involved John Cleese (Monty Python's Flying Circus, A Fish Called Wanda) who was a rich bank patron.  Even Cleese fell short of his usually high mark.  I have really liked Costanzo in his other roles -he usually plays the same sort of character, and this was no exception- but he had less of a chance to display the lovably cerebral qualites here.  I can only blame the script because I don't think the delivery of any of the characters felt bland or artificial, but the words they said and the situations they found themselves in just felt lacking.  Costanzo's best friend and in the film was played by David Krumholtz (10 Things I Hate About You, Numbers television series) who I also tend to like seeing on film, but again the role was uninspired.  It pains me to say this because I like so much of the cast, but just skip this movie unless you feel a burning desire to see all of the films that feature any of these actors.

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011, R)

To an extent, this review can apply to all three of the films in this franchise that have been released so far.  I recommend seeing them in order of release if you do want to watch them, though at the time of this writing only the second film is available to stream on Netflix.  I'm not normally a fan of "found footage" movies because the visual aspect is so limited as is the range of what they can (have to?) show the audience.  I think it's a lazy technique that, after the huge monetary success of the almost budgetless Blair Witch Project, filmmakers often turn to in order to make quick easy money.  However I do like the Paranormal Activity franchise and few other found footage movies because they still work well and get the job done.  This franchise (which I will consider one film for the purpose of this statement) is one of the top few that scare the poop out of me.

This third installment continued back in time with the mythos that the first film began and the second film established (they take place in reverse order and explain more as it goes on).  A friend of mine had a some people over for a viewing party (to get everyone caught up for when the fourth film is released next week) so we got to see it on a huge high-definition TV on bluray.  I don't know if it was the hardware setup that caused this or if it was actually shot in higher definition, but the "home video" footage in the film was shockingly clear, especially since it was supposed to have been shot in 1988.  I'm torn on how I feel about this because normally the bad picture is one of the things I don't like about found footage films, but it's sort of necessary to support the illusion of being found footage.  In the end, I think I approve of the clear visuals (by the time they make a third movie, we kind of have to go with the flow on a few things).  In some of the scenes, the presence of the camera felt manufactured, but for the most part it made sense.  There were a couple jump-scares (which a friend describes as the filmmaker "fishing with dynamite"), and one in particular, but I think it was actually organic to the plot.  The film had the same method as the first two, in that it slowly presented more and more examples of something spooky going on until things come to a head at the finale.  The way in which the film presents the not-rightness of the situation just tickles my scary-bone.

One of the things that made the whole franchise work is that the only faces you see are from actors you don't recognize from film or television in the past (which on its own is a part of the found footage method) but they still felt natural and unforced (which is a risk with inexperienced actors).  The particular paranormal presentations tend to work pretty well, because it's often a slow quiet thing you just notice and get creeped out by.   If you don't like the style of the first one, then obviously don't continue with the franchise.  If you have ADD or a similar temperament, then this movie will not be for you.  But if you like tension horrors (and not just action horrors/slasher films), then this could be right up your alley.

Alpha And Omega (2010 , PG)

I guess I haven't reviewed a lot of family films so far.  This one is a CG animated feature about a pack of wolves in a Canadian wildlife park.  The title of the film refers to the delineation between the alpha wolves (the hunters and warriors, more physically strong and agile) and the omega wolves (the peacemakers who remind the rest of the pack to play, more clever and creative).  Do I detect some social commentary?  The main character  Humphrey (voiced by Justin Long, who you might know from Dodgeball or Jeepers Creepers) is an omega male and he was puppy-hood friends with Kate (voiced by Hayden Panettiere, the cheerleader from Heroes) the alpha female daughter of the pack leader Winston (voiced by Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon).  Winston tries to remind a young Humphrey that "alphas and omegas don't... uh..." (he doesn't want to discuss mating with the impressionable young cub, nor do they use such harsh language as "mate" or "reproduce" in the film, though they do say "repopulate" at one point), which I found clever and amusing.  Winston's other daughter is an omega female Lilly (voiced by Cristina Ricci, also from Black Snake Moan and The Adams Family) showing that the castes are determined by individual proficiency rather than lineage, which I feel does add a sense of legitimacy to the existence of the roles if not the fraternization rules.

There are a lot of big name actors in the film, but the only one I recognized prior to the rolling credits was Dennis Hopper (mentioned more thoroughly below).  The movie was full of one-liners and sight gags which would be amusing to a small child but dumb to an adult, but there were a few gags that still made me chuckle.  There was one song and dance sequence and it wasn't all that great.  By "song" I mean howling at the moon apparently to some tune, and by "dance" I mean wolves prancing around on their hind legs in a kind of creepy-looking fashion.  The animation itself was not bad, but I thought it was kind of weird that they used semi-human-looking hairstyles to help differentiate between different wolves and between the genders; the different facial shapes and fur colors were sufficient.  The plot also included a rivalry with the wolf pack across the park (the leader of that pack was voiced by Dennis Hopper, also from Waterworld and Easy Rider, who passed away shortly after the making of this movie [the end of the film includes a dedication to him]).  With the pack politics and caste system, this movie is kind of a cross between Aladdin and The Lion King (but without a genie or murdering uncle).  I found almost all of the characters to be likable and there was a pretty positive tone, but it lacked the certain magic that you'll find in the really good animated features... so if you use this to follow up a Disney marathon of The Little Mermaid, Beauty And The Beast, and the aforementioned Aladdin and Lion King, you'll be sorely disappointed.  But if taken on its own and with properly managed expectations, it's an enjoyable if merely mediocre movie.  And I want to make clear, if there is not one or more children sitting next to you, there are other movies you should be watching.

Mary And Max (2009, NR)

This is a comedy, but not a quick-witted uproarious one.  It's a clay-mation feature that has the narrative style and tone that you would see in a book for grade-school children, but I think the ideal audience is actually a grown-up.  Especially early in the film, the establishing scenes are sad in premise but somehow charming in execution.  The film has a third-person narrator, but the story is still presented from the points of view of the main characters (the charm is managed largely by Mary's interpretation/non-understanding of some of the otherwise sad aspects of her life; the narrator will say what Mary or Max thinks or feels while the animation will show what we viewers might interpret in a different way).

Mary is a little girl in Australia who shortly into the film writes a letter to a random name/address she found in an American phone book.  Max -voiced by Phillip Seymore Hoffman (Capote), though I didn't recognize his voice- is an awkward middle-aged New Yorker who rarely leaves his apartment other than to attend his Overeaters Anonymous meetings or to see his psychiatrist.  His reply happens to be perfectly suited for the young child reader due largely to his particular and idiosyncratic personality.  They strike up a pen-pal relationship and the film follows them over the years.  Each is the other's only friend.  One of the cool aspects of the animation is that her life is portrayed in very few colors, mostly shades of brown, and his is in purely in greyscale... you almost don't notice until one of them mails an object to the other and the object retains the color scheme from its origin.

The movie is more charming than funny, but I chuckled a few times as well (though I mostly just smiled at the charm).  The story does indeed get sad, though more in the second half than the first, so you are eased into it.  Children might like the earlier half, though depending on the age they might not understand what's going on.  Very protective parents might not want their children to see/hear some of the more grown-up themes, but I think most would not object; I'll leave it to you to decide which you are.  The film is not rated, but I'd guess it as a PG, maybe a strict PG-13.  It could be a nice movie for a family to watch together, though I think an adult couple with a bowl of popcorn and a relaxing evening might enjoy it most.  I myself really liked it.

God Bless America (2011, R)

This is a dark comedy.  Like sprays of blood from reality-tv stars dark.  It's about a middle-aged divorcee, who has migraines and insomnia, who finds out he has an inoperable brain tumor and who is sick of the degradation of pop culture.  He goes on more than one rant throughout the film about what entertainment has become and the lack of originality or decency in things people say.  And he decides to go killing the "not very nice" people in the country.  The title, if you haven't already guessed, is meant ironically.  For any non-Americans reading this (and for Americans too, I suppose), please be aware that neither the main character nor his victims represent what all Americans are: they are merely a hyperbolic parody of the most pathetic parts of our society.

The movie started off slowly as it sets up his life and how much ti sucks, and only for moments at a time does it later get a fast pace.  Frank (the main character) is joined by Roxy, the classmate of his first victim.  His tired disgust for the worst of America is contrasted by her energetic vehemence against it, and she convinces him to turn his first kill into a spree.  Other than the obvious fact that Frank kills a lot of people, he maintains a pretty level head and somehow stays a pretty sympathetic character (there were several scenes where he could have gone really bad).

If you don't like violence, then DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!  But if you like a dark comedy and a cathartic violent romp against the various parts of society that really get under your skin, then you'll get a kick out of this one.

Jeepers Creepers (2001, R)

This one goes out to 75boof, who doesn't have a name and who doesn't like creepers (get it?).
Not currently available to stream on Netflix.

Jeepers Creepers is a horror movie that takes place largely on the road in rural America, where rescue is hard to come by, which is generally a good setup for a horror movie.  It starts off with a brother and sister on a long drive from their respective colleges to see their parents when on break from school.  The brother is played by Justin Long, who you might remember from the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" commercials (he's the Mac) or from Dodgeball.  The sister is played by Gina Philips, whose face looked really familiar to me, but I looked it up later and I don't think I've seen anything else she was in.  Maybe she just has one of those faces, I don't know (she is pretty though).  She's the more mature of the pair and her brother is a jackass, so I identified more with her.  When a big scary truck runs up behind them and terrorizes them, I assumed this would be a car-horror movie like The Duel or The Car, but I was pleased to see it branch out into other types of horror soon afterward.

Before I get to the next part, I must say my biggest gripe with the film was the scene where the truck terrorized the kids.  A big rusty truck with opaque windows and that moves impossibly fast for its size comes up right behind these kids on an otherwise empty road and blares his horn repeatedly while kind of swerving left and right.  At first I thought the guy just wanted to rattle them rather than actually pass (which would not normally be difficult), until I saw that the moron brother was swerving all over the road in his fear.  Now I understand that fear will affect one's ability to react rationally, but I'm pretty sure a good course of action in this case would be to 1) swerve your car to one side or the other such that the psycho behind you is no longer right behind you and 2) slam the brakes such that a heavy vehicle stands no chance of doing anything other than flying past your tiny sedan with it's short stopping distance.  Instant recipe for not-getting-run-over (works best on empty roads).  With the brother's idiocy and the siblings personal differences established, they do actually pull together when faced with the trouble ahead.

The Creeper (as the scarecrow guy is listed in the credits) spends plenty of time outside his truck and I was then under the impression the main method of the horror in this movie would be a standard slasher plot with a blade-wielding crazy man.  I was even further pleased when the Creeper was revealed to be a supernatural killing machine more like a cross between It (1990) and Jason Voorhees (Friday 13th films 2+).  Also, there's a high-strung psychic lady, played by Patricia Belcher, along the lines of Miss Cleo.

Overall, I expected a run-of-the-mill teen horror flick, but was very pleasantly surprised that this film actually set up its own mythology of a supernatural being, which you don't see too often these days.  Some of the kids' actions were a much needed departure from the standard scream-and-run or swing-something-long-at-it.  If you like horror movies, I strongly recommend this one.  If you don't like horror, then you're just not going to dig this one, so I don't even need to tell you not to watch it.

Clubbed (2008, NR)

This film is about a divorced father (sees his daughters on weekends) some bouncers he meets at a boxing club and the local crime boss/syndicate that cause trouble for them.  As the trouble between the two groups increased, I noticed a strong parallel between Clubbed and Road House (1989), except that this film is more modern, metropolitan and British, compared to the more rural, cowboy American feel of its predecessor.  It turns out Clubbed is based on a book called Watch My Back, the autobiography of Geoff Thompson, whose character is the main character and narrator of the film version.  The lead role (named Danny for the film) was played by Mel Radio who I was previously unfamiliar with, but the head bouncer was played by Colin Salmon who I have really liked in everything I've seen him in: Resident Evil, Punisher War Zone, television series Keen Eddie, etc.  He did not disappoint in Clubbed.  As the trouble escalates between the mob -who want to sell drugs in the club- and the bouncers -who are tasked with maintaining order in the club- you dread and know that bad things are going to happen.  And bad things happen too, but there were also moments throughout when you fist pump because there was a minor win for the good guys.  One of the major plot threads in the movie was about Danny wanting to spend time with his kids (he only gets to see them on weekends) and his ex wife not liking him or trusting him at all.  I found the ex's character to be extremely unlikeable, but I tried to keep in mind that she's acting this way because Danny has been screwing up for years before the movie started.  Still, I think she could have handled somethings better (She already got the kids, the car, and the house, while he sweeps up sawdust at the mill... she doesn't need to keep punishing him: she's won.).  The weak-link and/or scumbag of the bouncer group has bleached blond hair with his British (Welsh?) accent, which is only significant because it reminds me of Billy Idol and Spike from Buffy The Vampire Slayer (and as Spike would say, it "warms the cockles of my non-beating heart").

I wouldn't say this film did anything really revolutionary, but it was just a pretty cleanly done story.  I really liked a lot of the characters, and while some really bad things happened, there was not a pattern of soul-crushing sorrow.  I liked it (the movie, not the sorrow).  If you like stories about a struggling divorced father, this film can scratch your itch.  If you like seeing people fight against a powerful crime organization, then you are the target audience for this movie.

The Brown Bunny (2003, NR)

Written by, directed by and starring Vincent Gallo, this independent art-house movie is pretty much a one-man show.  I think I counted 6 faces that appreared on screen by the end of the film.  The vast majority of the minutes of screen time were used to show you how empty and lonely the main character's life is.  In the scenes when he does interact with another human being, it's sometimes completely silent and at other times they have a low volume laconic conversation.  there was no ambient music and very little ambient sound by the way, so this is a very quiet movie.  While I guess it's good that they showed it rather than just telling us in a voiceover, I have to say he could have accomplished this in a way shorter amount of time.  Pretty much the whole plot of the film (minus the point that he's lonely and misses his lady) takes place in the final scene.  This scene was still pretty quiet but at least it told some story.

I had heard that this film had some extreme and graphic content and I thought, "gee, that sounds interesting... I like movies that are different."  Well, it was different.  To ask Gallo's character's forgiveness for something in their past, she goes down on him... and here's where it's graphic.  Watching it, I was like, "That's not special effects.  That's not a prosthetic, it's not CG.  It's not a clever camera angle.  That's a penis.  In a mouth.  Of an established actress." Chloe Sevigny (Boys Don't Cry, Party Monster) plays the lady-interest in the film.  There was some pretending involved in this shot: I'm pretty sure Gallo didn't actually finish in Sevigny's mouth, but it still took commitment on her part to fill this role.  I have to tip my hat to her for going all-out in pursuit of her art, but I say "shame on you" to Gallo.  He was the sole creator of this almost-scriptless movie.  It's almost like he woke up one morning and decided he wanted the inside of Sevigny's mouth and wanted to put it on the big screen.  Apparently her talent agents dropped her from their services after the film was released.  Apart from that, I did like the story that takes place and the result of their conversation.  I think this could have made a really good short film (if they cut the first hour+).

If you like the film for its artistic portrayal and want to experience the main character's hollow life, then by all means you should watch the whole thing and enjoy it.  If you just want to be told a story (like I do), you should jump to the final chapter.  If you just want to see the sex scene (dude, you're already on the internet: that sort of content is everywhere.  But if you really need to see it with Sevigny), still jump to near the end.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006, NR)

This one is a documentary, and it's pretty interesting (if it's what you're interested in.  Any docu tends to be aimed at a niche market).  It's about the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rating system.  In 1968 the film industry changed from a censorship system (in which a movie was flat out approved or denied for distribution: denied = labeled as obscenity/pornography) to a voluntary rating system by a committed of people representing the "average American parent" (G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17, which was formerly called X).  Many film distributors will refuse to work with a film rated NC-17, and that rating will necessarily decrease the number of potential viewers for the film and the likelihood for them to even hear about the film, so the distinction between being rated R vs NC-17 is very important to filmmakers.  This is mostly true for independent/art-house studios because they tend to push social boundaries and try riskier projects, where as major studios have their own distribution systems an advertisement budgets, and they work mostly with "safer" projects based on projected earnings.

Like most documentaries, this film was filmed because someone had something to say, and this someone (an independent filmmaker, Kirby Dick) thinks the system and committee is unfair.  And I have to admit, they have some compelling arguments to that point.  Unlike any other governing body (such as, say, the Supreme Court), the committee members identities are held in strict secrecy and all have to sign non-disclosure agreements against any revelations in the future.  They're almost like a secret society, and have no oversight.  The makers of this film hired a private investigator to help find out more about the members and estimate their credibility.  What the PI finds out helps disprove several of the claims of the MPAA regarding their members such as that they are all parents of children within a certain age range and the maximum tenure of a member.  The committee doesn't have a strict numerical set of guidelines regarding what rating they will give, only general things that will increase or decrease a rating (arbitrary).  Also of note is that American films have a stricter rating for depictions of sex-related acts compared to violence and whereas Europe rates films more strictly for violence compared to sex (each continent has its own taboos).  Some filmmakers interviewed in this documentary are Kevin Smith (Mallrats, Clerks), Matt Stone (South Park, Team America: World Police) and John Waters (Hairspray, A Dirty Shame)... none seem satisfied with the MPAA rating system and the way two very similar films will receive different ratings.

I normally try to avoid spoilers at all costs, but this film is not really a narrative, and the film goes into a lot more specifics than what I outlined here.  Anyway either it's interesting to you or it's not.  I thought it was worth my time, but then again, I'm the kind of guy that starts a movie review blog.  Hopefully you know whether this subject is of interest to you or not, but I can say that it's well put-together in terms of quality.

Mr. Fix It (2006, R)

Available until 10/9/12.

David Boreanaz (from such TV series as Bones, Angel, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer) plays Lance Valenteen, a man who hires himself out to date other guys' ex girlfriends and act like a jerk until the gal goes running back to the guy.  To his credit, he only takes on cases where the guy is genuinely in love with the girl and he makes damn sure that's the case before he starts.  So it's kind of like Hitch but in reverse (film with Eva Mendes and Will Smith, and very good).  As I've said in previous reviews, I'm a fan of Joss Whedon (and therefore the Buffy and Angel series) so seeing Boreanaz on screen reminds me of the joy I had seeing the intrigue and humor of his other roles, but I have to admit that his performance wasn't particularly stellar in this film.  In fact no actor really wowed me here, but they were not particularly bad either.  Boreanaz's performance was actually pretty comparable to in Angel and not quite up to in Bones (I guess a couple of years of experience do pay off).

As you might have deduced, this movie is a romantic comedy.  It was plenty silly at times, and at other times crept a little north of silly but not quite into over-the-top territory, though it was not non-stop humor (you get a break in there).  I was surprised that it's rated R because wasn't violent at all, harsh language was noticeably avoided, and the only "sex" scene involved two completely clothed people (no zippers open or anything).  One of Mr. Fix It's ground rules that he tells to his clients is that he will not have sex with their exes.  Early in the film, the level of silliness was established and it didn't really deviate too much, and I never found it off-putting as I (as a man) am at risk for when watching a rom-com (but don't get me wrong, there are occasional rom-coms that I can enjoy.  Don't tell anyone I said that).

The story is about Lance's newest case.  He says he's incapable of falling in love, so he doesn't think he's any worse off for spending his "dating" time working on other people's relationships.  His true passion is car racing, and he hopes to get into the professional circuit.  But he needs to fix his car up first and this new case could pay for it.  The woman this case is (surprise, surprise) a knockout.  There was one "twist" that I saw coming a mile away (though I'll not spoil it, just in case) and one that actually surprised me.  Good for you, Mr. Fix It!  Lance takes his car to a garage in a retirement community that is run by a trio of older men.  These guys are pretty much the heart of the movie if not the (main) focus.  They are quite lively and charming, and make up for Lance's apparent lack of interest in women.  Among the trio was Paul Sorvino, who you might know from Goodfellas.

I liked the film, but not enthusiastically so.  Overall I'd think this is a good compromise movie for a couple to watch.  Sir, you could do far worse than this as far as chick-flicks go (yeah, I'd call it a chick flick), and you may even enjoy yourself.  Madam, don't be off-put by the fact that the main character is tricking women (he's actually trying to show them that their ex is not as bad as they thought), and by the end you'll realize this movie is for you more than for a guy.  Neither of you needs to step over an old woman to grab this movie off the shelf (besides, you can... you know... stream it) but if you just want to sit back and chill with a decent flick, this can be that flick.

Stranded (2002, R)

Finally some advanced notice for you guys: this movie is available to stream until 10/9/12.

Stranded is about first manned mission to Mars, in which the space shuttle CRASH LANDS ON THE PLANET.  I'm not spoiling anything, this happens by the time the title rolls on the screen.  Now, this isn't like being stranded on a desert island because THERE'S AIR ON A DESERT ISLAND, nor is it like being stuck in a submarine in anyplace as conveniently local as THE BOTTOM OF THE MARIANAS TRENCH.  It would take a rescue mission 1-2 years to get to these guys.

The premise sounds incredible, but unfortunately, the execution left something to be desired.  The broad strokes of the plot were really interesting.  They spent a good chunk of the early part of the film trying to decide what to do and how they were going to do it: assess their assets (more than I would have thought, which allowed the story to continue) and situation, mathematical likelihood of survival given different conditions.  It was smart stuff.  I don't want to give away the particulars of what they said/accomplished, because that would spoil most of the movie.  Unfortunately the actual specifics of the dialogue didn't sound scripted, more like the actors were told what they were supposed to generally discuss and what ideas each of their characters would provide, but not what words to use.  And the cast was pretty short on A- and B-list actors.  The actor with top billing was Vincent Gallo (whose dialogue provided more than the entire movie The Brown Bunny, which he wrote, directed and starred in... so I'll call it comparatively adequate here), but my favorite thespian of the group by far was Joaquim de Almeida (Desperado).  De Almeida's dialogue felt natural and his presence brought an intelligent dignity to the group: his was the character I respected the most.  Also among the cast was Maria de Medeiros, who played Butch's wife in Pulp Fiction.  She was (along with the two aforementioned actors) was one of the few on this film with previous acting experience, but her performance still seemed lackluster.

 The visual effect did not require a whole lot compared to high budget movies, but it did work very well for this film: it looked and felt like Mars (see NASA's recent Mars land rover photos).  Set design and location were (dare I say) perfect.  And there was a cool pay-off for the viewer near the end.

If you're a fan of (realistic: this isn't Avatar) space movies, you this should be on your to-do list, but I don't think that's a very wide target audience.  Otherwise, the fun per hour ratio isn't quite worth it.  A better choice for that sub-genre would be Moon, with Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2, The Green Mile), which was awesome (also slow, but much smarter and a bigger pay-off).

Blood Work (2002, R)

The film also written by him, Clint Eastwood plays retired FBI agent Caleb McCaleb.  Fresh from a heart transplant, he is approached by a woman who wants him to investigate her sister's murder.  He tries to decline, but is convinced to help when he finds out the victim is the source of his new heart.  It's a pretty good detective story with more intrigue than action, though it has some of both (the way I prefer it).  I prefer this one over Dirty Harry, which I think garnered its fame mostly because it's a story about an iconic gruff veteran cop.  Blood Work follows more closely to police procedure and following laws that would dictate the ways in which a cop or detective would be able to conduct an investigation.  The major variances from standard procedure/law can be accounted for by McCaleb calling in favors from other characters who share a history with him (we don't have to deduce that this is going on, it's apparent from the story).  I'm not an expert on criminal law or investigation, but I know enough to catch major errors and this seems to stay pretty well within the realm of plausability, which I like.

The most laudable aspect of this film is that several times there are clues shown on screen (and seen by McCaleb) but not obviously important; later McCaleb will realize its importance and flash back to it.  The audience has enough time before the flash that sometimes we can figure out connections before the detective and feel proud of ourselves.  I like it when a film allows me to get involved like that.  Character/attitude wise, Eastwood's character seems to be settled evenly between his roles in Dirty Harry and Gran Turnino.  That might not help you unless you've seen both (if you watch all 3 of these, I think you'll agree... please comment and let me know whether you think so or not), so I'll try again: he's experienced in getting the bad guy and a little active, but still battle-weary and getting on in years to where he can't do as much of the physical work as he used to.  Jeff Daniels plays his neighbor (they both live on boats on the marina), and like with several other normally-comedic actors (Dumb and Dumber, 101 Dalmatians), I prefer his dramatic work and think he fit this character role perfectly.  He was a chummy, cordial guy who tried to help his neighbor out a bit.  McCaleb has a nicely filled-in professional  history with the various law-enforcement officers in this film and I especially liked that his relationship with sheriff's detective Jaye Winston (played by Tina Lifford) felt genuine but wasn't overly obvious like, "hello, we are good friends!"  Show-don't-tell is usually a good policy. 

The weakest part of the film was Paul Rodriquez's role as rival cop.  The acting was fine, but the character was over the top (making inappropriate jokes at a crime scene, etc)... that there's no way he wouldn't have been reprimanded by his superiors.  He'd know better than that by this point in his career.  Later in the film, after his character had already been established as the crass jerk, the role worked a little better.  The comments seemed more natural and were directed at McCaleb rather than at the deceased at a crime scene.  I liked it and thought it was a fine detective story, but doesn't really stand out among that genre by much (other than the chance to figure it out yourself).  If you like detective stories, almost noir (but not quite), or are a fan of Clint (he's his same old self here), then you'll like this one.  If not, you can give it a pass and be OK (but if you were tied down and forced to watch it, it wouldn't be that bad either).