ONE HARSH CRITIC: What Happens In Vegas...

To pee or not to pee…

I’m going to let you in on a little secret. As a man who drinks coffee by the pot, diet (thank God) soda by the six pack and the occasional water, urinating during movies is always an issue. And this issue has often guided my judgment on certain types of movies – mainly the one’s I see on my wife’s behalf. Just being honest…

So very often, you can’t judge a romantic comedy on the usual scales. One can’t really consider the story as they largely follow the same formula. Its hard to judge on the writing as its often cheesy and geared toward a very specific demographic. The style of the film is simply to “be” a film, so a critic must throw that out the window as well. Since I started my “ONE HARSH CRITIC” column almost two years ago, I’ve never lied, never pulled a punch and always – most importantly – called it like I see it. So for romantic comedies…

There’s always that moment for me. I’ve got to go to the bathroom. Sometimes urgently, sometimes uncomfortably, and sometimes it reaches emergency status. But that’s where a decision must be made. To pee or not to pee…

What Happens in Vegas is the predictable story of two unlikely one night lovers (Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher) who get married one very hazy night in Vegas. Just as they’re trying to reconcile and agree on an annulment during what must be a ferocious hangover, they win a three million dollar jackpot on a slot machine. Now, as man and wife, the money technically belongs to both of them.

Judge Whopper (Dennis Miller) decides that conservative values must be reinstated on America and sentences them to try to work out the marriage for six months before either will be awarded the winnings. And comedy ensues…

The format is the same as it is with most movies of this genre. The couple bickers they fight, they fall in love, they break up and…

This is one romantic comedy that got the comedy part right. There are many laugh out loud moments, while many of them can be spotted a mile away. A great supporting cast including Rob Coddry, Lake Bell and Zach Galifianakis really keeps the film moving and the audience laughing. In fact, I wish they played a bigger part in the film, giving more support to Kutcher and Diaz playing the same characters they always do.

In short… there’s no surprises here. There are funny moments. Its well crafted but predictable. Its adequately acted, and the dialogue doesn’t make stomachs turn. So when that moment in time came, I chose… not to pee.

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: Stop-Loss

I didn’t know what Stop-Loss was. It’s a serious issue. This is definitely a subject that should be thoroughly examined and brought out for public scrutiny. What better way to do that than to make a feature film outlining the struggles that the soldiers who experience it go through. The moral dilemma a soldier would face, the outrage, the potential for to die – its all there, and it’s all very real.

The problem is, MTV made this movie. Instead of doing all the things aforementioned, this film is a high gloss montage of “alternate medium”, with love stories and faux drama crammed in. It’s unfortunate that it just doesn’t seem to get to the heart of the issue – one that should be examined.

Stop-Loss is the story of Sgt Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) who has returned from a moderately successful tour in Iraq only to find that he’s been “Stop-Lost”. What does that mean? According to this film, it means he has to go back to Iraq, even though he’s done his duty. He’s served his time and he wants out. That’s the meat of the story here. If he doesn’t go back, he’ll be arrested for treason, whoever he’s fulfilled his contractual obligation to the government. Why does this occur? Due to the nations will for a lack of a draft? The film doesn’t get into that. Hmm…

King goes AWOL with the assistance of his good friend’s girlfriend Michelle (Abby Cornish), and here’s where we get to see one scene is pivotal. In a crack motel, soldiers are hiding. They can’t get jobs, they can’t get credit, they can’t earn money – these soldiers who were stop-lost and ran are federal fugitives. This scene shows soldier living with criminals after serving their country, facing death and experiencing the unimaginable. It’s powerful, and it lasts about 3 minutes.

Am I wrong to think that the whole film should be geared more toward the disrespect, the amorality of this stop-loss program? Several scenes are delivered well showcasing the prominent effects many of these men and women experience post war. But we’ve seen this before… Not to say its not horrible, because it is. But this film is called STOP-LOSS!

I apologize that this is less of a film review and more of a rant. I just think that these filmmakers scratched the surface here, and more should be done. I heard a rumor that there was a documentary in the works on these soldiers. I hope this is true, and I hope it helps our government realize the detriment to moral a program like this has.

Oh… and the movie is so-so.


—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: Doomsday

I’ll admit I’m a sucker for film that creates an alternate universe. I’m not talking fantasy… somewhere far, far away. I love the worlds created out of nothing… waste lands where people survive. Films like Mad Max and Waterworld (terrible film, but excellent example of my point) create a way of survival where ordinary objects become substantial when used in bizarre ways. In a Lord of the Flies style of survival, savages form tribes and nearly dehumanize themselves.

Doomsday is another such film. Bizarre costumes, facial tattoos and a cut throat dog eat dog way of life sets the tone for this fun action flick. I could argue that this outlines the history of man past present and future. It shows the evils of society in three stages of existence. It predicts what will happen when we use all the resources and are forced to feed on the weak – survival of the fittest. But that’s reading way to much into a film that should simply be a good time.

Doomsday is the story of Scotland, or the remains of said nation, after a terrible virus has killed all of its inhabitants. Quarantined under martial law, no one has gone in or out of the “hot zone” for decades, but satellites have picked up recent activity in what was thought to be a wasteland. And as luck would have it, the virus has mutated and resurfaced in England. One doctor stayed behind in Scotland, to find a cure. The British government can only hope he’s still alive and has made some progress. So logically, the cure can be found in the survivors living behind the quarantine walls in the wasteland that is Scotland.

A team is quickly formed, led by a stoic Katherine Sinclair (Emma Cleasby), a girl who was rescued from the virus years before. With little to live for except finding her roots left behind in Scotland, she runs the team with rampant disregard for the danger they might soon face.

And on the other side of the wall, danger is what they find. A colony of cannibals, rife with rituals and sadistic lifestyles led by a psychopath named Sol (Craig Conway). Sol is, consequently, the son of Kane (Malcolm McDowell) the doctor who was left in the wasteland. And the two are feuding. The son has created a world of the bizarre. They are outcasts living together, eating each other and craving pain. Kane and his tribe have reverted to medieval times, dwelling in an old castle that was renovated for the tourist trade. It creates and interesting juxtaposition of the past, present and future, as I said, but that’s really reading a lot into this piece.

Sinclair leads her team through one of the goriest films I’ve seen in some time using futureistic weapons against the savages who simply over power them with numbers. She eventually is held captive by both tribes in different segments of the film, while knowing full well escape is just an ass beating away. It’s all part of the plan.
Gore, violence, amazing costume design and action are the things to watch for here. The story has been told before in various mediums. This isn’t anything novel. This isn’t anything new. However, one thing this offers that few movies of 2008 can… a good time.

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: Because I Said So

Sometimes, I just set myself up.

First off, let me say that I hate it when critics include their own personal affairs into their reviews.  I find it distracting and unnecessary, not to mention a tad egotistical. I don’t particularly care what so-and-so had for lunch before the viewing.  I don’t care what caused What’s-His-Name to be running late. I just don’t care.

However, now, I’m going to break my own rule…

I’m a married man who loves to see movies – any movies. Therefore, I’ve seen my share of “chick flicks.” From Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights to Honey, I’ve seen them all.  And to be honest, at least fifty percent of the time, I’m at least mildly entertained. And that was the case with Because I Said So.

However, as the opening credits were rolling over a slide show of vintage family photos, my wife leaned over and said, “This movie sucks already.” I guess we’re really “Two Harsh Critics.”

But then the movie continued. Sure, it was a two-hour cliché. Sure, much of the dialogue was cheesy beyond description. Sure, the plot was hokey and character actions were unbelievable and over the top. But isn’t that what you go to expect when you pay ten dollars to see a movie of this nature?

Because I Said So is the story of a family of three sisters and an overbearing controlling mother. The psychologist of the family (Lauren Graham) announces that mom, Daphne (Diane Keaton)’s controlling behavior is a result of her own need for happiness as she approaches a milestone birthday.  She continually attempts to set up her youngest daughter Millie (Mandy Moore), to no avail. After what could almost be called an intervention, Keaton’s character vows to never meddle again. 

Of course, this is after she’s already put out a personal ad and held interviews to find her daughter Millie a mate. The result of which is a pompous architect (Tom Everett Scott). But conflict arises as hotel lobby guitar player, Johnny, takes an interest in the “interviewing process” and takes matters into his own hands to meet Millie. 

The rest of the film is a simple love triangle played out in standard romantic comedy fashion. Its almost as if I don’t need to outline the plot here, but here it is in a nutshell: likeable artsy poor musician vs. rich wealthy architect. Johnny reveals that he has a son, and is a single father. He gets a lot of parenting help from his uncle Joe (Stephen Collins), who begins to lay the foundations for dating Daphne.  

When Johnny catches Millie with Jason he’s furious, and at this point in the movie, it’s unclear why.  The illusion of time passing has been poorly executed, so it appears as though he flips out over a non-exclusive dating situation – its not flattering. Millie goes back to Jason, but through a batch of burned soufflé’s (she’s never burned them before), Millie realizes that Jason’s not right for her.  Enter cliché ending… And this time around, throw in a little happiness for mom, too. 

So all in all, there’s just not much to say on this one.  Its not Shakespeare, but its does have its mildly amusing moments. A scene with all four women in their underwear (Keaton included) is certainly note-worthy as Piper Parabo, Graham and Moore all look amazing throughout.  Also, watch for the scene where Mandy Moore attempts to explain what an orgasm feels like. Beyond that, there wasn’t much to it. My wife didn’t even cry.

If you’re looking for a no-thinker date type movie, Because I Said So might be a good option. It certainly has had more longevity that its current competition Catch and Release, and while I can’t comment on Music and Lyrics yet, I think it might be a coin toss.

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: Hannibal Rising

Hannibal Lecter may be the most intriguing villain to ever appear on screen. There, I said it. But that statement should be nothing new.  Lecter’s wisdom and ability to read people along with a heart devoid of morals, makes him the kind of threat that’s not only terrifying, but its monstrous – it’s simply impossible to concieve the sort of evil that Anthony Hopkins so gracefully depicts in Hannibal Lecter.

And then comes Hannibal Rising.

After seeing this latest cinematic installment of the Lecter saga, sadly, his personal has been cheapened. A character that was once hard to look in the eyes (even on screen), has been reduced to bad acting, corny dialogue, and a distracting facial scar. 

The story of the film does shed a little insight onto early stages of Lecter’s life. Indeed, bits and pieces are interesting, but there’s nothing in this film that can justify Lecter’s unabated lack of emotion or value of human life – perhaps its not possible to every justify why he is the monster he is. It just would have been nice if director Peter Webber had tried a little harder to bring writer Thomas Harris’ vision of budding cruelty to life. 

The film begins with young Hannibal and his family, driven from their castle in war torn Eastern Europe.  After witnessing his family’s murder by allied air attacks, Hannibal and his sister Mischa are kidnapped by war profiteers, who eventually eat the younger Lecter. The remainder of the film is spent as a much older Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) seeks out his sister’s murders.  One by one he tracks them down and in the meantime, he has a subtle love affair with his widowed aunt and learns the way of the Samurai. After already becoming a psychopathic killer, his breaking point supposedly comes with his aunt tells him there’s nothing left in him to love. Call me crazy, but when you’re eating human cheeks, you’ve fallen off your rocker long before.

While Ulliel tried his best to portray the young psychopath, he had some pretty big shoes to fill.  Hopkins portrays the cannibal to perfection, and as he created the visual persona of said villain, perhaps its unfair to compare the two. I did however find myself reminded of Stewie Griffin from time to time as Ulliel tried to make every thing he did look as sinister as possible.  One scene in particular could have been subtitled, “Look at me… I’m so evil and I’m dialing the phone.”

The writing, while Thomas Harris can be credited with one of my favorite novels of all times (guess which one), wasn’t much better.  Once liners and random actions seem to be attempts at justification for Lecter’s killing patterns, but they simply don’t play out.  It’s a huge leap, for example, that because Lecter was once told that the cheeks are the best part of the animal, that he would begin eating human cheeks. These laughable lines and examples of foreshadowing smack with the image of Harris winking and saying, “See… that’s why Lecter does that.” It just doesn’t work. 

In the end, this film doesn’t stand up to the other Lecter stories, but you can’t (or shouldn’t) really expect it to.  The novel written much later seems like the answer of a demanding fan base, wanting to know where the unquenchable evil that is Hannibal Lecter came from.  Take away the captivating preconceptions of who this killer is, and you might have a good film on your hand, but that’s simply not possible to do. Oh, and it would also need to be re-written, re-cast and re-shot.

Maybe that’s too harsh, but all I’m saying is… if you love Lecter, put in that DVD of Silence of the Lambs that you should already own, and enjoy him the way he’s supposed to be enjoyed.  I’m sure you could find something better to spend your ten bucks on. 

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: Saved!

There are a lot of factors weighing in on an individual’s perception as they determine a thumb up or down. Who is the film starring?  Who was the director?  What kind of story is it?  One factor people often fail to include is their fellow audience members.  A lively crowd and make or break a comedy, ruin a drama with laughs or create terror during a scary slasher flick.  Sometimes, though, even the this contagious force surrounding the moviegoer as he loves, hates or simply endures one-hundred minutes of the big screen, an be enough to sway an opinion. 

This was the case with Saved!  What was intended to be a comedy did in fact have the audience rolling, but I failed to crack a smile.  While I wasn’t laughing, I spent the time wondering if I was stupid for not understanding a genius that was unfolding before me (very doubtful) or if the rest of the audience was simply drunk.  Either way, Saved! is a comedy that will leave you wanting more—more story, more laughs, more fun. 

The story is essentially based around Mary (Jena Malone), an aptly named girl who gets pregnant while attempting to serve the Lord.  Lead by a bump on the head rather than anything divine, Mary sleeps with her boyfriend Dean (Chad Faust) in order to rid him of what she perceives to be foul gayness.  For obvious reasons, she fails and the result is a swollen belly and a boyfriend in a halfway house believed to be able to “cure” gays. 

Feeling abandoned by her former best friend Jesus, Mary embarks on a journey of crumbling faith as she climbs the ranks of her Catholic school’s lowlifes.  Her friends and family abandon her and she takes solace in two other outcasts: a cripple named Roland (Macaulay Culkin), and a Jewish punk rocker named Cassandra (Eva Amurri).  The three bond over the Mary’s real life problems as they leave the sheltered and slightly insane Jesus freaks behind. 

To make a long story short, during prom the perfectionist Hillary Faye (Mandy Moore) is exposed in framing Mary and Cassandra for vandalism, Dean returns from the halfway house with his boyfriend and Mary’s water breaks.  The extremely eventful night hints at the film’s theme as Mary and Dean deliver a speech about what religion should be—true and accepting in nature. 

Surprisingly, the best thing about this boring and flat film was the former child star Macaulay Culkin.  His comedic timing was perfect as he portrayed an apathetic cripple.  Culkin’s entrances were the only thing that made me smile while his exits signified more boring screen time for the rest of the cast.  That being said, it was nice to see Mandy Moore break her goodie goodie shell and play a near psychopath. 

All in all, this film was a compete waste of time.  Not only is this a horrible date movie, it would be bad with a buddy or even solo.  The concept (which seems more like a skit in a sketch comedy show), was funny at the get go, but became completely tired after several minutes leaving almost two hours to dread.  If you want to laugh, I recommend you go see Dodgeball instead. 


Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: Wonderland

Just when you think you have seen enough drug movies complete with stock traits like fast editing, strange graphics and confusing plot lines, Wonderland is yet another in this genre as he attempts to outline the story of porn ledged John Holmes. While this film lacks originality in its style, the actors involved truly manage to evoke an odd sense of emotional attachment as the audience begins to find characters to root for.

John Holmes, played by the aging Val Kilmer, has lived his porn career to its extent and turning to the other vices of his industry, has managed to become a major player in a ring of drug dealers. With his significantly younger girlfriend by his side, played by the stunning Kate Bosworth, Holmes has one reason to live, but plenty of reasons not to as he gets caught up in the famous “Wonderland Murders.”  The film unfolds the plot in three basic sections through the testimonies of David Lind, Holmes himself, and the sole survivor of the Wonderland murders. 

Biker David Lind (Dylan McDermott), turns himself in to the police in order to tell his story in which Holmes has murdered his friends and the love of his life in order to get his revenge for receiving the little compensation for his involvement in the planned hit on LA club owner Eddie Nash played by Eric Bogosian. According to this first version of the events which occurred at the wonderland house, Holmes was present and helped Nash’s men gain entry to the house in order to commit the gruesome murders.

Following Lind’s lead, Holmes is arrested, and he wants to make a deal. If he is granted immunity, he is willing to tell his tale; one that differs significantly from Lind’s.   Nash, threatens to kill Holmes’ family if he won’t find and help kill the robbers.  According to Holmes’ story, in order to protect his family, he fingered the culprits, and left before any of the murders took place making him only a minor accomplice in any of the crimes. 

What we assume to be the real story emerges through Sharon’s well timed flashbacks, and the testimony of the sole surviving Wonderland victim, played by the barely recognizable Christina Applegate. This third version implicates Holmes’ interaction with both Nash and the Wonderland Gang. Not only is Holmes forced to turn in his friends for robbing the Nightclub mogul, but he is also forced to personally beat one of the criminals to death with a lead pipe. After cleaning up at his wife’s house, Holmes returns to his girlfriend and goes about his business.

Confused yet? While the flashbacks and multiple storylines create a mild bewilderment producing a smoke screen around the truth of what actually happened, it is this same uncertainty that draws the audience in as no one in the film is completely clear as to what transpired at the Wonderland house either.  Mumbled dialogue through loud music and parties add to the realism of the film, but also contributes to the confusion as lines are dropped and conversations missed in the din of strange sound mixing. 

While the film doesn’t convey a straight forward plotline, the actors involved manage to make this film very watchable. In addition to wonderful performances by Kilmer and Bosworth, Josh Lucas and Tim Blake Nelson very effectively bring to life two burned out junkies, and Eric Bogosian is truly scary in his performance as Eddie Nash. Through these actors, the film gives just the right amount of character development giving the audience permission to love and hate everyone in this film. 

Is there truth in here? Who knows, but it is at least entertaining. While many of the story’s questions are left unanswered, the actors evoke true emotion as the characters’ lives are quickly shattered.  his film is not groundbreaking, but definitely worth watching. 

Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: Run Fatboy Run

Ok… there’s a red flag here. I love Simon Pegg. Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz where just plain fun movies. I love Michael Ian Black. He can do no wrong, including his VH1 work on “Best Day Ever” and etc. The problem I have with this film is David Schwimmer.

So in short, Simon Pegg was funny as ever. Michael Ian Black solidifies his ability to write extremely funny material. And, lastly, David Schwimmer has climbed up the ladder and directed a film that I really enjoyed.

If I had a hat, I’d eat it.

Run Fatboy Run is the story of Dennis Doyle (Pegg), a loser security guard who’s life has been on a downward spiral since he left his beautiful bride (Thandie Newton) at the alter years before. When the film begins, Dennis feels he has a “normal” relationship with his ex, Libby, as he shares custody of their son. That is until Libby begins to date again.

Enter Hank Azaria as “Whit” the pompous American ass, and one of his funniest roles to date. Playing largely the straight man, Whit becomes the bane of Dennis’ life as he’s constantly proving to Libby and company that he’s far, far superior. That is until Dennis decides he still loves Libby and he’s every bit as good as Whit in his own way.

And in his own way, the only way to prove it is to run a charity marathon under the banner of “erectile dysfunction” and finish it (if Whit can do it, why can’t he?).

This film is one of those where one might assume that all the funny moments are ruined in the trailer. Not so. In fact, many of the trailer moments are funnier in context. I don’t often praise comedies, but this is one of the funniest movies I’ve seen on the big screen in years.

Here’s why:

The writing is amazing. Dialogue seems so natural and flawless as the actors simply nail their characters. They’ve been cast as though they really are who they pretend to be on screen. Dylan Moran, for example, makes you want to be the funny degenerate gambler who would stab you in the back for money, and why should you want to be that guy? Because he’s so funny. Moran makes desperation almost attractive as he continues to throw his family and friends to the wolves, but finally finds a better meaning in life. Harish Patel plays the landlord who wants nothing more than to get Dennis out on the street. He too finds a dark horse to root for.

That’s the point. We’ve all been there. We’ve all felt like the loser. But losers can win.

Check this film out, and remember what’s good about yourself, your flaws and your problems. Remember how you overcame them. Most importantly… laugh.

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: The Bank Job

This is a fun movie. Bottom line.  It’s no cinematic masterpiece.  The story has wholes and patches of underdevelopment. The acting is on par for an “action bank heist” type movie (which less face it, is normally less than desirable). But, The Bank Job is well worth watching for one simple reason… Its fun.

Loosely based on actual events, The Bank Job is the story of Terry Leather (Jason Statham), a man who just wants to get a head in life, but can’t seem to catch a break.  Whether that’s his fault or not, is unclear, but as he’s constantly hounded by two bagmen for money owed a bookie, less face it, Terry has probably not made all the right decisions in life.  He does however have a beautiful wife (Keeley Hawes) and two children. When he’s presented with an opportunity to get out of his mundane existence by an old childhood friend, he takes it.  There are only two problems – the old high school friend is the gorgeous Martine Love (Saffron Burrows), and the opportunity involved robbing a bank.

Terry assembles a team of misfits and comedy, as they say… ensues. But through comedic moments the plot thickens.  Robbing the bank is a guise to recover some sexually explicit photos involving British royalty. A Malcolm X like radical is using said photos to blackmail the British courts, and basically is allowed to do whatever he pleases.  Martine is only involved to recover these photos and return them to MI-5 in order to clear her own drug record, and quite possibly leave Terry and his team swinging in the wind.

During the robbery, the team uncovers a book of payoffs made by smut peddler Lew Vogel (David Suchet), and he wants it back – not to mention the corrupt members of the police force he’s been bribing.  The film becomes a game of cat and mouse, bait and switch and sort of hard to figure out how anyone can possibly win. And in the end…

Got it?

Like I said, it’s a fun movie. Statham is good as ever as he plays the tough action hero.  One problem here… there’s not much action. Its looks like his typical role, but the film is light on stunts and effects, and that’s not a bad thing. Statham gets more of an opportunity to act, but less opportunity to amaze us with car chases, building falls and explosions.

One major problem is the relationship between Terry and Martine. There’s an obvious connection, and the mention of opportunity lost, but the relationship is grossly underdeveloped.  Will they hook up? Have they before? Do we want them to? Well, Ms. Burrows is unbelievably attractive, so here’s hoping, but there’s no fruition to the question. One onscreen kiss is supposed to suffice for a relationship, past, present and future, and it just doesn’t work. 

On a similar note, Terry has a family. Based on what made this cut, it looks like he’s a deadbeat with an amazing family who’s stood by him for no reason. Why do they even like him? With the exception of my conservative morals, there’s no real reason for the audience to even want them to stay together. She’s barely in the film, and the ending (without giving it away) suggests a major decision between the two women.  It just doesn’t play. 

But forget about those minor details. This plot isn’t even full of twists and turns, but its got so much “who’s going to do what to whom”, a mind is constantly busy trying to figure out how Terry’s going to, not only get out of this, but alive.

I say skip most movies.  To some I say definitely go right now and see them. For this one, I’ll say this: See it. See it on the big screen, or on DVD. I don’t think the movie house adds much to this one.  Just wait until you want to have some fun, and check out The Bank Job.

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: There Will Be Blood

You’ve read the reviews. You know that I disagree with many of them. Hell, I disagree with most of them. But if you’re tired of reading about how great There Will be Blood! is, then read no further. Cinematically, this film is brilliant.

But then you have to take certain factors into account. I don’t think its possible for this film to have had the impact it did sans Daniel Day Lewis. An almost meek man in real life, Lewis transforms himself, as we so often seem him do. He plays an oil baron in the early days of American oil drilling, who’s greed and hatred for his fellow mankind turn him into evil personified. He delivers jaw dropping monologues so intensely full of hate, that one wonders if such a man could really exist. But therein lies the genius of Lewis. Every single word he utters on screen becomes believable.

There Will Be Blood is Paul Thomas Anderson’s version of classic American writer Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil!. Lewis plays Daniel Plainview, a bootstraps laborer who built an empire from a single lump of gold.  Prospecting became the family business, though he really had no family.  He adopted his partner’s son after his death in a drilling accident and raised the boy as his own. It wasn’t until years later that the boy finds out that he’s not, in fact, a Plainview.

Lewis’ character maneuvers the plotlines of this film to challenge society, religion and all moral standard. He is really the antagonist of the film as he kills all that’s good in any situation through abuse, alcoholism and murder. Yet, somehow, he’s identifiable.

Nearly every line in the film is quotable. There is no excess. Yes, this film is long, but it certainly doesn’t feel like it. The visuals are stunning as Anderson recreates an era that few Americans stop to examine, and it’s fascinating.

I’m going to cut this review short. Its not in my nature to give high praise to a film, and without anything to complain about, I simply don’t have the words. However, those of you who regularly read my column will realize, the simple fact that I like this movie is enough. As a man who leaves the theater in disgust 9 times out of 10, I have to say this is that 10th time. 

If you haven’t seen this film… See it.

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

If a few good lines were able to make a movie great, The Aquatic Life with Steve Zissou would be destined to become a classic.  However, films are usually two hours, not two minutes.  Bad acting, strange editing and quirky (in a bad way) writing made this imitation 70’s flick tough to sit through. 

To be honest, I didn’t want to write another bad review.  The year is almost over, and I can’t wait as 2004 has really failed to impress me as I have sat through bomb after bomb.  And even though I am sure I will give at least one more negative review before the ball drops, I really, really wanted to give Wes Anderson an A.  That being said, I was checking my voicemail before act one was over. 

The Life Aquatic is the story of a washed up sea explorer named Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) who sets out to find and kill the fish who swallowed his best friend, Esteban.  Or is it the story of a documentary team who is fighting to find funding for yet another film that is surely going to bomb?  Or is it the story of a young pilot named Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson) in search of a relationship with his estranged father? Or…well you get the idea.

The cast was cemented by veterans like Jeff Goldblum, Angelica Huston, Bill Murray and Willem Dafoe, but they couldn’t hide the fact that the other half of the cast was engaging in their freshman attempt at feature film acting.  Maybe it was supposed to ring true of brutal 70’s acting, but the fact remains that it was still brutal.  I found myself wondering if one actress was cast simply because she was willing to bare her breast for fifty percent of her screen time – something I shouldn’t have had time to wonder about. 

A brutally slow 70’s throwback, this film couldn’t decide if it was Shaft or The Yellow Submarine.  Long takes filled the screen with pointless reactions and frivolous information that left me often asking, “What was that?” Anderson’s usual humor falls short as this film’s idea of a joke is and intern wearing a shirt that says intern, a girl with no shirt on for the sake of having no shirt on and a crew’s uniform being red hats and blue Speedos.  None of which left me smiling. 

As Anderson’s humor fell short, so did his quirkiness.  Known for his randomness of plot, character and style, Anderson’s The Life Aquatic was just strange.  Cartoon fish, Portuguese David Bowie remakes and sudden action scenes just seemed out of place as this film drug on and on. It just didn’t fit together. 
All in all, this film was simply a flop.  There’s really not much to say other than save your money, and watch it on HBO.  At least then, you can change the channel.  

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: The Forgotten

Two hours is a long time to keep an audience’s attention, and so many films fail to do so, but director Joseph Ruben seems to have stumbled upon some secret attention-grabbing element that should be sold in Hollywood.  He has managed to take a mediocre plot, terrible dialogue and bad acting and, through terrifying startles and jumps, keep his audience riveted.  

The plot is luke-warm at best as Telly Paretta (Julianne Moore) befriends ex-hockey player Ash Correll (Dominc West) as they follow a trail of clues in hopes of finding the truth about what happened to their children.  Telly has spent years believing that her son has been killed in an airplane crash.  When photos and videos of her son’s life begin to disappear, she questions her husband who tells her they never had a child. 

Enraged by his sudden betrayal, Telly flees from her home, psychiatrist and the police as she is diagnosed as a crazy person.  After a brief encounter in which he doesn’t remember her, she sifts through Ash’s alcoholic haze and convinces him that he once had a daughter.  Apparently to remember his now missing daughter, all he had to do was say her name.  No longer alone in her quest, Telly begins to conquer self-doubt, and see things more clearly.

Government conspiracy and strange sci-fi elements keep this plot from going south as the pair run from the NSA, police and psychiatrists.  But the obstacle this plot fails to overcome is predictability.  Nearly every “twist” and “turn” can be seen way before they manifest on screen, keeping a good idea from becoming a great one.  The villain is seen very early in the film, and while it is the director’s intention to pass him off as a random pedestrian, his role is obvious.     

Moore tries really hard to hold this piece together with her merely competent co-star West, but neither were really given much to work with in this script.  Some scenes were completely ruined as the audience was laughing through lines that would have fit better in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.”  Bad dialogue leads to bad acting, and this film had plenty of both. 

What keeps the audience from walking out the theatre doors is Ruben’s ability to really scare.  The last half of this film has some genuinely scary scenes.  One instance in particular, an extremely vivid car crash, left me shaking, and, based on their screams, I’m not sure if the girls in the row behind be will ever recover. 

The cons definitely win the battle as this film doesn’t have much to offer, but if you like an easy scare, check it out. While not a terrifying film in premise, “The Forgotten” will make your heart beat faster-a lot faster. 

-—--
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the scariest movies ever made; and then it was remade, and remade again, and the third times wasn’t exactly the charm as director Marcus Nispel’s attempts to recreate the 1974 horror classic.  While shock noises, intense killings and a scantily clad Jessica Biel made this version entertaining, it failed to reach the height of terror portrayed in Tobe Hooper’s original. 

The tale told in this 2003 rendition was much the same as its predecessors as several road tripping teenagers stumble upon the wrong house at the wrong time.  Their ill timed arrival at the house led them into the hands of the Hewitt family, and their son Thomas a.k.a. “Leatherface” portrayed by through the body language of Andrew Bryniarski.  Again, much like the 1974 classic, this version portrays the graphic and gruesome deaths as one by one the teens are senselessly slaughtered to satisfy the deranged Thomas as he acquires skin to cover up his own deformities. 

However, the two versions differ significantly beyond the nuts and bolts of the plot.  A hitchhiker, obviously in a state of complete hysteria, commits suicide in the Kemper’s (Eric Balfour’s) van.  When the teenagers stop for help, they quickly realize that this is not a normal part of Texas as they are told they must meet the Sheriff at the old mill out in the middle of no where.  Upon their arrival, the kids befriend the odd and obviously abused Jedidiah (David Dorfman) who tells them where the Sheriff lives.  In a quest to call police to retrieve the suicide victim, the group splits up, and the slaughtering begins as they attack, flee and just attempt to survive their assailant’s meat hooks, sewing machines and chainsaws.  Erin (Biel) manages to escape, only to be brought back to the evil’s point of origin, but sees her opportunity to do some good as she rescues a stolen baby, and runs the murdering Sheriff over three times.  The film ends in a bookend style as the investigation footage vaguely depicts Leatherface hacking up the police on the scene.  

Unfortunately, it is some of these differences that keps this film from reaching its potential as a true terror flick. Screenwriter Scott Kosar’s adaptation allows the insanity to spread as it seems that the whole town has been infected with Leatherface’s madness. Sheriff Hoyt, played by famous vocal harasser R. Lee Ermey, is only one of several town citizens who seem to lead the unfortunate youth toward the Hewitt household. This addition gave the film a sort of X-Files conspiracy at a carnival feel as more and more people were involved. The set design, while extremely weird and eerie, seemed to be a contest to make each scene more bizarre than the last as odd dolls, jars with strange contents and skulls in junkyards surrounded the unfortunate victims through their last minutes. It takes weirdness a bit over the top. This style of set design along with an attack on Leatherface with a butcher knife, and Jedidiah’s assist in the escape makes this film seem more like Nightmare on Elm Street than a true tale of murder. 

What made the 1974 Massacre so extremely terrifying wasn’t the use of special effects or fancy camera tricks, but rather the simple notion that this actually occurred.  The audience looked on in complete horror as these ordinary kids lost their lives in ways so terrible it didn’t seem possible for them to be fiction.  Unfortunately, this realism was completely lost in this most recent film as it inherited a slasher film slant.  While it is definitely entertaining, and worth a viewing, if you like the original, you might want to hold off until this Massacre reaches the video store shelves. 

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer

ONE HARSH CRITIC: The Big Bounce

“Who’s Scamming Who?”  The quote on the billboard asks the question as though the answer were not as obvious as the whole this film left in my wallet.  It seems that through an all-star cast, the producers of The Big Bounce have attempted to “scam” the general public into seeing this disaster, yet didn’t care that no audience member could possibly leave the theatre happy.

A quirky comedy that is neither quirky nor funny enough to be called either, The Big Bounce is the story of a petty criminal who gets in over his head.  While the situation never touches on anything remotely tense, it becomes difficult to understand how this is possible.  The criminal, Jack Ryan played by Owen Wilson, one of several actors way too good to grace this horrendous waste of film, is fired after braining his boss with a baseball bat.  He is recruited by the island judge and corrupt entrepreneur Walter Crewes (Morgan Freeman) to be a maintenance man at his sea side bungalow colony.  Through a series of deliberate flirtations, he meets Nancy Hayes (Sara Foster), a woman who serves the roll of lover to almost every male in the film.  Her wild side, fueled by her lust for criminals, is ignited as she learns that Ryan has served sentences for several petty crimes.  Thrust aside by the arrival of her lover Ray Ritchie’s (Gary Sinise) wife, Hayes grows restless, and through her sexuality, she begins to coax Ryan to indulge in a spree of worthless crimes. 

Seeing Ritchie as an easy target, Ryan and Hayes formulate a plan to steal the stockpile of illegal funds Ritchie intends to use for kickbacks and pay-offs of union employees, but a bumbling Bob Rogers Jr. (also Nancy’s lover) stands in the way.  Using Crewes as an alibi, Ryan sneaks to the home containing the money, but the plan falls apart as he realizes that he has been set up.  Hayes, Crewes and Ritchie’s wife Allison (Bebe Neuwirth) had already decided to make Ryan the patsy for their heist.  Wise to the plan, Ryan escapes with the money, but must leave behind the girl he has begun to fall for.  With a little “luck” he manages to escape with one of Crewes’ bungalow tenants, a hot young woman looking for a little attention. 

Or, at least that is what I think happened.  This story is so muddled by confusing names, flopping loyalties and comedic scenes that just couldn’t land a single laugh that the writers could have intended this to have an entirely different plot, but one thing I am sure of, this film is terrible. 

The cast of males in this film were promising enough in themselves, but these talented comedians weren’t allowed to be funny as the jokes just lacked punch lines.  It was obvious where the laughs were intended to fall, but the theatre (packed with 6 or 7 people as the premiere of 50 First Dates launched across the street) remained silent save a yawn here or there.  And with the heavy hitters filling up the male side of the film’s roster, it is unclear why a known femme fatal wasn’t cast opposite them.  Sara Foster, while possessing an incredible sex appeal, lacks any sort of talent when it comes to acting.  Although her yellow bikini might have given ticket sales a boost, her acting is sub par at best. 

Elmore Leonard, the pen behind the excellent stories of Get Shorty and Out of Sight was no doubt disappointed in the outcome of his latest on screen endeavor, as was I.  Many of my film reviews come to a close advising the reader to wait until the film comes out on video, but in this case, I would recommend not wasting the time to find this film on the shelves.  Rent something else.   

—-—-
Josh Gloer, Freelance Writer