Movie Review: One Missed Call

ONE MISSED CALL (2008)

1/2* (OUT OF FOUR)

MILD SPOILER WARNING IN EFFECT: That’s right, it’s January again and the new year almost always ushers in a gigantic load of cinematic garbage to fill our local multiplex’s screens while the talented filmmakers are out working on something worth seeing. Nothing has changed this time around as Warner Bros. seems more than happy to dump yet another remake of a Japanese ghost story on us that’s every bit as scary as one of R.L. Stein’s Goosebumps books.

The original 2005 film, directed by one of the most original and exciting filmmakers in the world, Takashi Miike, was nothing to write home about (Miike, however talented, has been known to make three films a year, and thus will direct anything) but at least showed a thread of competence. In the words of Borat: “This one, not so much.”

When 24 year-old Shelly drowns in the pond outside of her house, it’s ruled a suicide (apparently, people who commit suicide by drowning themselves also drown their pets too). At a party on the night of Shelly’s funeral, one of her friends, Leann, receives a call from Shelly’s cell phone. Too freaked out to answer, Leann and her friend Beth (Shannyn Sossamon) let it go to go to voice mail (ha ha, one missed call, get it?). The missed call is labeled a couple of days in the future and the message is of Leann herself talking frantically, followed by her screaming, followed by silence. And you know the old saying – it’s all fun and games until someone gets pushed in front of a moving train and dies. The message is Leann, seconds before her death.

Likewise, thing on with Leann’s phone calling someone after she dies, and that person’s phone calling someone before they die, etcetera and so forth until it finally gets around to Beth, who’s the only one smart enough to track down the source (of course, there is only one cop who believes her, Jack (Ed Burns), and of course, she has a crush on him). And no Japanese horror film, Americanized or not, would be complete without a creepy little kid who’s doesn’t speak and draws with crayons (surprisingly, this creepy little kid doesn’t have black hair – now that is the way to put a spin on things).

One Missed Call also suffers from the unforgivable characteristic in any horror film – being boring (at least something like Vacancy didn’t give us the chance to think about how much it sucked until it was over). There are only three deaths in the film (and it’s PG-13 rating assures that we get no visceral thrills from any of them) and a lot of time is wasted on the characters frantically filling each other in on what’s going on. This has always been a way of separating the good writers from the bad ones: the good ones know that what matters is that the audience knows and cares about what’s going on. The bad ones make the mistake of believing that their characters are part of the audience too.

There is one decent scene in the film in which a television producer, obsessed with his late son’s demonic possession and now with a show dedicated to such occurrences, contacts one of the soon-to-be victims about doing a special on her for his show. Her eventual death, in a church where her phone’s exorcism (yes, you read that correctly) is being filmed, is well shot and features some rather disturbing images. In the end it doesn’t matter (if you really care, I’m sure you can catch that scene on Youtube in the next couple of weeks) because One Missed Call is utterly forgettable, overwhelmingly stupid, and viciously insulting to any moviegoer. This is an early candidate for worst film of the year. – Brandon Nease

Movie Review: Transformers

TRANSFORMERS (2007)

1/2* (OUT OF FOUR)

I don't buy into the "I enjoyed it as a kid, so I have to see it now argument". My little sister enjoyed Barbie as a kid, but now that she has become an adult, she's left stupid, childish things behind. Michael Bay once said (in response to criticism that he only makes films for teenage boys), "I make movies for teenage boys; oh, dear, what a crime". He also said (in response to criticism by Roger Ebert towards Pearl Harbor), "Does he actually think we research every nook and cranny… he's watched too many movies". And in a more recent quote about the look of his the transformers in his latest film he said:

"Well, it's just, you know, listen, it's like...I didn't want to make the boxy characters, you know? Think about it, 30 feet in the air in the real world, just boxes, you know and it'd just look more fake, you know? And by adding more doo-dads, you know, stuff on the...stuff. Stuff on the robots, more car parts, and...you know you can just make it look more real."

Michael Bay is right - making a movie for teenage boys is not a crime (although I do question the decision of giving a project of that nature (and $150 million) to someone who speaks like a 14-year old girl). But just because it's made for that audience doesn't exempt it from being grounded, relatable in some sense to the audience, and at least logical within the film universe it occupies.

Transformers is bad on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. So I guess I'll start with the opening sequence in which we follow a gigantic cube floating through space. It's accompanied by an extremely cheesy voice over (and I do mean extremely cheesy) explaining only that the cube is important. The camera turns and spins on every physical plane humanly possible (while asteroids explode upon contact) until we see that the cube is headed toward Earth. Smash cut to present day where a helicopter that was shot down three weeks ago mysteriously shows up on a military base, transforms into a robot, and kills everyone in sight. At this point, I'm still on board – it's not great, but it'll do.

Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf, the talented young actor from Disturbia, and one of the film's only bright spots) is a high school junior hoping to land his first car. That is, if he can get an 'A' on his class presentation about his family's history - which, of course, ties in nicely with the history of the transformers and the upcoming destruction of planet Earth. "The owner doesn't pick the car, the car picks the owner", so says car salesman Bobbie Bolivia (Bernie Mac) in a movie-long trend of would-be humorous scenes that are stretched out far too long (another coming later in the film when Sam brings Optimus Prime and company to his house while he searches for a pair of glasses essential to the plot that wears out its welcome by a solid five minutes). Sam discovers later that the car that chose him is one of the autobots, the good guys of the alien robot race that has infiltrated us and remained in disguise for nearly a hundred years, dragging Sam and his soon-to-be girlfriend, Mikaela, into the middle of a all out robot war. Once the top military minds in the world are persuaded by two high-school kids and a local hacker (who are granted access to places that the Secretary of Defense himself has no knowledge of) that not only are there cars that transform into robots but that there are "good ones", the US military is in on the gig and prepares to battle the decepticons (yeah, I know, I knew it was stupid when I was four).

I must give some credit to Transformers for its simplistic story. It doesn't fall into the textbook popcorn flick trap of overwhelming us with terrible side plots. The sad part is that, even with no side plots to deal with, the film still fails miserably at making its main one remotely interesting. It moves at a snail-like pace, not delivering the goods from an action standpoint until over and hour and a half into the show. Instead we see a lot of Sam, Mikaela, army guys, FBI guys, hackers, and the Secretary of Defense (Jon Voight) running around like chickens with their heads cut off wondering aloud as to what the hell is going on – all of which are so one-dimensional that nothing that comes out of any of their mouths is worth being scribbled on Fisher Price desk with a crayon, much less a professional screenplay. And once the action does arrive, it's painfully mediocre. The battles between the transformers are very poorly shot – the camera can't stop moving around long enough for us to ever get a clear view, much less a comprehensive look, at what's going on. It's the equivalent of zooming your home video camera in as far as it'll go on your toolbox while one of your buddies rattles it around.

The action also suffers from the same problem as the latest installment of Pirates of the Caribbean, that is, pointless drama seems made up out of the clear blue no matter how illogical or irrational simply to keep the action going. There's a scene during the climactic battle in downtown Los Angeles where transformers are kicking the shit out of each other (or so I assume as I couldn't see any of it) and the air force is on standby waiting to join the action. But amidst all the carnage that's taking place (buildings crumbling, cars flying, fires burning, etc.) the planes can't come by and do their thing until Sam runs to the top of a building and sets off a flair so they can locate the action. Maybe that gives you some sort of idea of the brainwave this film is floating on.

The movie drags on and on and on, giving us pointless and boring flashbacks and it's over halfway into the film before Optimus Prime finally and desperately explain things to us in true early morning cartoon fashion (I promise you that the feeling of the film is exactly the same as the cartoon, and the dialogue spoken by the robots is worse than nails on a chalk board). Apparently Michael Bay, unlike Roger Ebert, hasn't seen enough movies. Or he'd know that the best sci-fi flicks are the ones that keep us in the dark. How can you attempt to explain the actions and reasoning of beings from another galaxy, which have absolutely zero relation to anything in our world? I believe that there was potential for something interesting here. At least Independence Day built some sort of tension and felt somewhat inspired. Instead Bay, who doesn't have a sense of good storytelling in his whole body, just cuts straight to a car racing down the road to the newest, hottest rock track on the top 40. Transformers feels more like a hundred 90 second trailers mashed together with a Linkin Park music video, mashed together with a Chevrolet commercial (I kept expecting to see "professional driver on closed course, do not attempt" as I watched countless helicopter shots of the new Camaro cruising down a twisted road interspersed with quick panning shots across the logo on the front of the car). He's simply a sellout, in every sense of the word.

Transformers is bad even for Michael Bay, whose proved once again that he's just as deserving as Uwe Boll for the title of the biggest hack filmmaker of our time. It's his worst film next to Pearl Harbor and easily the worst film of the year. It's a lock to win Oscars for its sound design (which is amazing) and special effects, but in recent years those categories have basically become a large-scale substitute for the Razzies worst picture of the year award. I think that sound design and special effects should add up to something, and, God forbid, contribute to the picture. But there's nothing here worth contributing to. This will make a killing at the box office. The real atrocity is how many people will actually go back for a second go-round or purchase the DVD. Anyone who's old enough to grow pubic hair and enjoys this unwatchable garbage is mentally underdeveloped and should be shot - they're the reason why there are hundreds of great scripts and talented filmmakers out there that will never see the light of day. Because they'd rather spend their hard-earned money to see a no-talent ass clown director essentially masturbate with Paramount's money. Fuck Michael Bay. Fuck the Transformers. And fuck anyone who supports them. - Brandon Nease

Movie Review: Even Almighty

EVAN ALMIGHTY (2007)

* (OUT OF FOUR)

Evan Almighty isn't a bad film so much as it's overwhelmingly average. Now officially the most expensive comedy of all time (weighing in at a little over $175 million - wrap your lips around that!), it will probably accomplish exactly what the studio intended as they continuously threw more and more money at this bloated, over-played disaster/comedy hybrid. Get the family out for something safe (as there's nothing here to offend anyone on any side of the fence) and make sure it's utterly forgettable so they don't skip over it at Blockbuster once the DVD is released. That actually seems to be a common occurrence these days; you pick up a DVD and have to think to yourself, "Did I see this?" Not because you're too stupid to remember, but because most every film produced today that's genre driven and aimed at a particularly large audience (especially the family market) follows the same blueprint of mediocrity.

Stepping away from this mediocre life as a local newscaster, Evan Baxter (Steve Carell, who's done far better work than we see here) has been elected into Congress and packs up the family for a big move to Capitol Hill. His campaign slogan is "we can change the world" and when he prays the night before his first day in office to do just that, he receives his answer in form of biblical references/hints: the first of which is his GENeral Electric alarm clock that starts going off every morning at 6:14. After a mysterious package filled with old-fashioned building tools arrives and a delivery man drops off a couple of pallets of wood, Even begins questioning the oddity and is visited by none other than God himself (Morgan Freeman), who commands Evan to build an ark.

Of course persuasion is needed: slowly but surely pairs of animals begin following Evan around (at first it's simply cats, dogs, squirrels, birds, etc.), the number '614' turns up everywhere, his beard and hair grow at an incredible speed and are impervious to shaving ("adult puberty" Evan calls it), and God makes himself visible to Evan at nearly every corner. Eventually, Evan draws heat from his colleagues at work from both his appearance and many embarrassing sight gags involving his new found animal friends, especially the film's one-dimensional antagonist Congressman Long (John Goodman), who's depending on Evan's help in sponsoring a new Land Act Bill.

The film feels completely off-balance. The screenplay is mostly predictable but shows flashes of hope every now and again, maybe just enough to keep things somewhat interesting. The actors seem particularly inspired at times and completely wooden at others which has a big influence on why the comedy is so hit or miss and why the serious moments vary between passable and just plain cheesy. I'm reminded of an amusing sight gag where Evan accidentally whacks him thumb with a square, wooden hammer for obvious reasons only to have the shot repeated no less than five times throughout a montage of his building struggles. The filmmakers clearly had no clue as what was good about the movie and what was not, as the meticulously crafted bad moments (like Evan losing his clothes on the House floor immediately followed by an extended sequence of birds and wild animals storming through an open widow) completely overshadow the good ones - like when God, posing as a waiter, has a quick sit-down with Evan's wife at a restaurant, which felt completely rushed as if it were only there to fill out the running time. There's noting to really hate about Evan Almighty, but it's not an acceptable substitute for not giving us much to admire, either. - Brandon Nease

Movie Review: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER (2007)

** (OUT OF FOUR)

Expectations were low for the second installment of the Fantastic Four franchise after the first film clocked in just a notch or so above Ghost Rider and Catwoman. It was stale and played more like a superhero sitcom than a superhero movie. Fantast Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (from here on, Fantastic Four 2) has not re-invented itself, but has played more towards the first film's strengths and away from its weaknesses. In other words, it's not great by any stretch of the imagination, but it does its job serving as passable summer entertainment, which is more than we can say for some of those other summer blockbusters.

We begin with two of our heroes, Reed Richards and Sue Storm as they are preparing for their wedding, which is, thanks to the quadruplet's popularity, something comparable to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, or for the more dramatic types, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. The ceremony takes a backseat, however, because of an anomaly that the military has witnessed whizzing through the Earth's atmosphere bringing snow and causing lots of blackouts. We know this anomaly as the Silver Surfer, an alien who serves Galactus, a giant planet-eating being, in order to preserve his own home planet. The team makes many efforts to stop the surfer in accordance with the effort of the military who pretty much just stands by and watches them work, offering plenty of criticism when things don't go as planned.

But there's more, Victor Von Doom, who's been reduced to a state similar to Emperor Palpatine (and has the look go with it), in an attempt to join forces with the powerful surfer has been mysteriously healed by his powers and recruited by the government to assist the Fantastic Four on their mission. Doom, however, is more concerned about acquiring the surfer's board, the source of his energy.

The film is, like all comic book films, filled with elaborate set pieces as the backdrop for even more elaborate action sequences. But give director Tim Story some credit for not filming them in some completely incomprehensible manner and letting the action and special effects actually compliment each other, rather than feeling forced like the SFX team was simply just trying to out-do the other guys.

My problems with the film lie mainly in the studio's decision to dumb it down and go for a PG rating. I'm not sure if this was a premeditated decision, but it feels that way as the character's dialogue is quite cheesy most of the time and the sight gags are usually laughable in the wrong kind of way. I just think that these characters could have benefited from having more mature personalities. The kids are going to love it either way, why not spice things up just a little?

I know it sounds ridiculous and childish and I'd be a liar if I didn't say that it is. But that is The Fantastic Four 2's strength – its ability to just wash over you without pretentiousness or the need to justify its own existence, a fate which many comic book franchises have suffered from as of late (including the latest, but still enjoyable, installment of the Spider-Man series). It also benefits from its running time which, at a mere 95 minutes, doesn't overstay its welcome and feels more like a two-part comic book issue instead of a complete mini-series. In a summer that's been full of disappointments, its nice see a film that actually exceeded my expectations. (Note: keep an eye out for Stan Lee's cameo – it's probably the best one he's done yet) - Brandon Nease

Movie Review: Hostel Part II, Ocean's Thirteen, Waitress

HOSTEL PART II (2007)

*** (OUT OF FOUR)

Oh, there's much criticism thrown towards people who enjoy these "pornographic" flicks that have taken the horror world hostage since the Saw franchise was ushered in nearly four years ago. The bottom line is that Hostel Part II (hereby, Hostel 2), is no more than a pure modern-day exploitation flick. And writer/director Eli Roth might be, with the exception of Quentin Tarantino, the film's executive producer, the best, or at least most consistent, grindhouse director on the market.

This time around we follow Beth (Lauren German), Whitney (Bijou Phillips), and Lorna (Heather Matarazzo), three women who are backpacking across Europe on vacation. They, much like our guy pals of the first film, are looking for a good time and make the mistake of checking into a hostel that serves as a feeder-school if you will, to the underground world of connoisseur-murder (yeah, I just made that up). The film follows the same pattern as the original – a good 45 minutes or so of hanging out with the chicks followed by a good 40 minutes or so of blood, guts and "torture-porn". (I do have to admit that this is one of, if not the most, obscene, violent mainstream films I've ever seen. My only guess is that it was screened by the MPAA first thing in the morning, before they were fully conscious and aware of what exactly they were witnessing.) Anyhow, what makes Hostel 2 instantly superior to the first film is that these women are actually somewhat interesting (I said 'somewhat', Roth is still far from a great writer), and they're adventures are more about experiencing the culture rather than getting high and looking at tits.

Along the way, they meet up with Axelle, a nude model who poses for them in an art seminar in Rome, who talks them into coming with her to Slovakia as their next stop. The plot is, obviously, predictable but it does a pretty good job of stretching things out to build tension for the bloodbaths to come – it doesn't feel too prolonged or too short. Once the gals are registered at said hostel, mass e-mails and text messages are dispersed worldwide to former clients, and a bidding war (much like most of us have experienced at least once on e-Bay) begins. The winners for two of our victims are Todd (Richard Burgi) and Sutart (Roger Bart, both from Desperate Housewives descent).

The sub-plot involving Todd and Stuart is probably the most interesting one. Neither have done this before, but apparently they've gotten word and have had fantasies. Todd is gung-ho, he can't wait and we get the feeling he's stayed up at night planning every second of what he'll do when he gets in that room. He's even paid for Stuart's victim as a birthday present, though Stuart is the type that enjoys the blood and guts in the movies, but doesn't think he can stomach it in real life. Nonetheless, he's dragged along, and there's no turning back now. The "behind-the-scenes" is one of the most interesting aspects of this film in comparison to part one.

Once the violence begins, it doesn't hold back. (There's a scene involving a woman in a bathtub that's easily one of the most disturbing, finger-gnawing things I've ever witnessed.) But not surprisingly, the tables turn and the real money shots will be total crowd-pleasers. Horror films are, above all, about images – the ones you remember over time that make you blink your eyes a time or two. This is where Roth succeeds. He's a good director, there's no denying that, and a true fan of the genre. Hostel 2 is nothing more than exploitation, and there's nothing wrong with thrills for thrill's sake. If you're looking for something disturbing that will stick with you every time you see a pair of bolt cutters, then Hostel 2 is the film for you. And if you like your suspense and violence balls-to-the-wall with no strings attached, then by all means indulge yourself.

Chris Cabin of filmcritic.com says that Hostel Part II "sets the horror genre back a solid decade". I say, so what? If The Grudge 2, The Messengers, and recent Wes Craven productions are the measuring stick of what the horror genre has become then count me out. I'll take ten Hostels if it means I don't have to watch another watered-down remake of some Japanese horror flick about pale ghosts who move like they're wired to a Playstation controller. - Brandon Nease

OCEAN'S THIRTEEN (2007)

*** (OUT OF FOUR)

The problem with most heist films is that the payoff is rarely worth the buildup. Steven Soderberg's Ocean's Eleven dropped like a bomb in 2001 and was smart, sexy, funny, unpredictable and left us wanting to hang out with these guys again. I liked Ocean's Twelve because it didn't fall into the franchise trap of being a cash-grab, it made no attempt to be a carbon copy its predecessor. That film was good enough and different enough that it could nearly have stood on its own had Ocean's Eleven not even existed. I love Ocean's Thirteen because it recaptures the mood and feel of Ocean's Eleven (it's great to be back in Vegas!) with the accelerated humor, sight gags, in-jokes, and self-awareness of Ocean's Twelve.

Reuben (Gould) has landed himself in the hospital, the symptoms – well, he's depressed and has nothing else to live for after Willie Bank (Pacino) screws him over in what was a be a partnership on opening the biggest new casino/hotel on the strip. Like the one-sheet says, "If you cross one Ocean, you cross them all", so Danny (Clooney) and the boys decide to get one over on Mr. Bank for the injustice done to their friend by duping the casino into unprecedented loses on the night of its grand opening.

As usual, their tasks are "impossible" – they must rig every house-heavy odds game (blackjack, roulette and craps) all in their, and every other player's, favor – and the speed bumps along the way make them increasingly so. (You know a film is working when you as an audience member throw you hands in the air and say, "What the fuck are they gonna do now?!") With impossible tasks come impossible solutions. Along the way the boys must usher in new card shuffling machines, infiltrate the Mexican factory that makes the dice, and even fake an earthquake. Things get even worse the gang runs out of money and go to Terry Benedict (Garcia) for a loan to finish the job (which he is happy to oblige being that Willie is his biggest competition). But isn't that why we watch – to see characters who are smarter and cooler than you do all the things that you wish you could do?

All of the original cast is back except for Julia Roberts (who hasn't done a film in 3 years and still demands superstar money) and Catherine Zeta-Jones (who, from how I understand it, there wasn't really a part for). Clooney and Pitt are priceless as usual with their best-friend brand of dialogue. Matt Damon gets more comedic screen time (including a hilarious scene with Ellen Barkin which is way too good to spoil here). Virgil and Turk (Casey Affleck and Scott Caan) are as funny as ever as the typical fighting brothers, though I found I wanted more of them. Don Cheadle has a great scene undercover as a black Evil Knievel. Andy Garcia gets just enough screen time to remind you how big of a douche-bag Benedict is. And Al Pacino is a wonderful addition as a menacing villain that wasn't quite present in part two. The ending of the film is sufficient. We feel satisfied as the story seems to have drawn to a close, but there are a couple of lines that tease at the possibility of another sequel. I haven't grown tired of it yet – much like the James Bond franchise, I could watch 20 of these things as long as they feel fresh and are consistently satisfying as they have been.

What has consistently surprised me about these films is their ability to define "cool" and make money without the grotesque violence and vulgarity (Hostel), a gimmicky look (300), or the promise of the new most spectacular event in movie history (Pirates of the Caribbean); in other words, they're keeping it real. Call in self-indulgent, call it ridiculous, whatever. What I call it is clever, well-crafted, good entertainment, and that is what the movies are all about. - Brandon Nease

WAITRESS (2007)

*** (OUT OF FOUR)

Every once in a blue I'll watch a film with a standard audience. I almost always tend to find that most moments of brilliance in a film go largely unnoticed by your average John Q. Moviegoer and most of stuff that I find clichéd and overplayed tend to go over pretty well. About an hour into Adrianne Shelly's indie hit, Jenna (Keri Russell) asks her asshole boss, Cal, if he's happy. His reply: "I'm happy enough. I don't expect too much and I don't give very much. I guess I'm generally excited about most things… yeah, I'm happy enough." This speaks wonders not only for Cal but for every other character in the picture and, for that matter, life itself. It's the little moments like this that make Waitress a good film, but its same type of wannabe moments (particularly, ones that border on the extremely syrupy) that keep it from being great and, I'm fairly certain, ensure marketability for the mainstream.

Jenna is a waitress, and quite the cook, at a pie diner who is married to an overbearing, annoying husband, Earl (Jeremy Sisto, more on Earl later), and has learned that she is pregnant. The baby, she feels, is more of a bump in the road than anything else, making it that much harder for her to run away from Earl and start anew. Set in an undisclosed southern landscape, it's the quirkiness in the comedy that keeps this film on its feet and interesting, rather than the usual seen-that-before garbage that its logline might have you believe. Anyhow, Jenna finds new love, or it may just be excitement or spite of her current situation, or probably a mixture of all three, with Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion), her new gynecologist. All of this is leading up to what makes this picture appealing which is Jenna's desire not to chase some ridiculous fleeting dream (thank God) but hope that maybe by the end of the film she'll be happy enough.

Russell is wonderful as Jenna - you just want the squeeze the shit out of her. She comes across as shockingly realistic, and we genuinely care for her. She turns in one of the best performances I've seen all year. Sisto too is pitch perfect as Earl who is not the typical abusive, manipulating husband but a version of one that we've rarely seen. He doesn't yell much, and he doesn't spend all of his screen time demeaning or beating on her. Our hatred towards him is because of his selfishness and stupidity and Jenna's lack thereof. Cheryl Hines and writer/director Adrianne Shelly are Becky and Dawn, your typical middle-aged southern waitresses, Jenna's co-workers, and best friends, who provide comedic companionship for their friend and serve as a reminder that Jenna can do much better for herself. One of the funnier moments of the film is when one of Dawn's previous blind dates, Ogie (Eddie Jemison), a nerdy, poetry spitting fellow, shows up at the diner to remind Dawn that he loves her and will never take 'no' for an answer.

Waitress will be this year's Little Miss Sunshine - that little independent comedy that audiences love. And I don't think that's too bad. At least it's better than being that over-hyped, overblown franchise action/adventure picture that audiences seek and love because the commercials on television tell them to. – Brandon Nease

Movie Review: Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Pirates 3, Bug, Knocked Up, Mr. Brooks

So I haven't written about movies in a while. Normally, I can find something to blame – school, work, production, etc, which was the case up until about three weeks ago. But now I can't blame anything; I'm just a lazy bastard. But since watching movies requires much less effort and, usually, brain-power, I've still been doing a lot of that. Here's my thoughts on the big summer releases that have opened recently.

SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007)

*** (OUT OF FOUR)

The third chapter of Sam Raimi's comic book trilogy was at once a solid effort and a frustrating disappointment. The problem with Spider-Man 3 is its predecessors. The first Spider-Man was fresh and fun, reminding us of the kid that enjoys superheroes inside of all of us. 2004's Spider-Man 2 is, in my opinion, the best comic book movie ever made – proving that movies about superheroes can contain just as much human emotion and real world problems and thinking as any "art house" movie of your choosing. Spider-Man 3 didn't necessarily lack these qualities, as much as it just fell a little short on them. One thing that has made the Spider-Man series so great is the way it handles its characters. Spider-Man 3 has so much going on (and one too many villains) that it couldn't accomplish this in the allotted time. It's still superior to almost every other comic book adaptation on the market today. Just because it doesn't live up to part 2 doesn't mean it's bad.

SHREK THE THIRD (2007)

*1/2 (OUT OF FOUR)

I liked the first Shrek. It had a cool idea, it was a great kids' film, and the humor was in that rare territory where it appealed to adults without feeling forced (i.e.: Shark Tale, Shrek 2, amongst many others). Shrek the Third is that inevitable film in a franchise where it's simply just a cash-grab. The characters have become merely templates – a blueprint where anyone with half a brain could fill in the blanks and make a Shrek film. This one revolves around Shrek in the King Arthur plotline and trying to bail himself out of becoming the king of Far Far Away. The kids will love it, only because they're too young to know any better, and some adults will only because their brains aren't developed enough for them to know any better. That's OK though, because as long as people are willing to spend their hard earned money on the same movie over and over, Hollywood will keep on crankin' em' out. Aren't you proud of yourselves?

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END (2007)

* (OUT OF FOUR)

POTC: Curse of the Black Pearl is one of the definitive examples of what a great summer movie should be. Dead Man's Chest was no surprise to me, as I knew it would surely be inferior. But as bad as DMC was in comparison to COTBP, AWE is that much worse than DMC (sounds like a complicated algebra equation). The third, and hopefully, if there is a God, final chapter of the Pirates saga is one of the most large scale, incoherent, cluster-fucks in the history of cinema. We'll be in the middle of a large-scale scene with our main characters, and then someone says or does something that's so completely out of left field just to get us onto another plot line when they haven't finished the other fifteen that are already established. It's like someone just completely re-wrote their characteristics for the sake of creating pointless drama regardless of everything they've said or done in the past. Jack is dead, but not really, and some people flip a ship upside down when a green light flashes on the horizon and they enter an tentacle-man's locker, and there are lots of crabs, and the East India company wants a ship captain's heart, and there is a goddess lurking among them, and then they find out who it is, and no sooner than they discover it, she's fucking gone, and there's samurai pirates, and people contradict the things they say almost in the same sentence, and then…. do you get where this is going? Can anyone out there honestly tell me what the hell is going on in this movie?! Like most trilogies that weren't originally intended to be, parts two and three usually end up coming full circle back to what the first one established in just one movie; they're just pointless. Even Captain Jack Sparrow is getting old. It's not disappointing-bad, it's just bad-bad. Much like Shrek the Third, POTC: AWE is no more than a cash-grab, it's allegiance to a brand name. Three hours of dusting the furniture in your room is more deserving of the time.

BUG (2007)

*** (OUT OF FOUR)

William Freidkin, who brought us such classics as The Exorcist and The French Connection, is back with one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen. Now, before all of you horror fans run to the multiplex, let me put the emphasis on 'disturbing', which is much different than 'scary' (which is very rarely achieved anyways). Bug, I assure you, is different than anything you've ever seen. It's based on a stage play, so people sit around and talk, and talk, and talk. What's interesting about Bug is how it manages to suck you into the character's world, and therefore their state of mind, ever so subtly. By the time the film reaches it's climax, you, like the characters on screen before you, might feel as if you've gone completely out of your mind. You aren't personally scared, but you fear for the people on the screen (of whom, are Ashley Judd and the original play's Michael Shannon, who both put on a tremendous show). It's of those films where my not revealing the plot is doing you a huge favor. It's also one of those films that some thirteen year old is going to sneak into and be scarred for life. If you, like me, are sick of seeing the same film over and over again, then go see Bug if, for no other reason, you're looking for something different.

KNOCKED UP (2007)

**** (OUT OF FOUR)

Thank God for Judd Apatow. The man who brought us The 40 Year Old Virgin proves with his sophomore film that he's not a one-hit wonder with easily the funniest film I've seen all year, and it's likely to stay that way. Apatow has invented a new breed of comedy – one that's explosively funny, with super-crude humor, brilliantly written pop-culture references, wrapped in a kind-hearted love story, and filled with real adult experiences and thinking. Seth Rogan, who stole the show in The 40 Year Old Virgin, has the leading role here as Ben, a 23 year old jobless pothead who makes the mistake of not wearing a rubber when he has a one-night-stand with successful entertainment show host, Allison (Katherine Heigl). Knocked Up feels like one of those comedies that's a marker for the times, much like Tootsie or The Graduate. It's pure delight from beginning to end; now we have a new movie to quote for the rest of the year. Thumbs way up!

MR. BROOKS (2007)

*** (OUT OF FOUR)

Mr. Brooks is one of those films that the term 'guilty pleasure' was made for. There nothing too original going on here, but it (much like last month's Disturbia) is just put together well – it knows what buttons to push and when to push them. Kevin Costner is Earl Brooks, a successful CEO of a box company who has another personality named Marshall. Marshall is addicted to killing people. Sure the schitzo thing has been done before, but it's interesting here as his alter ego is played by William Hurt, who's seen in conversation with him in nearly every scene. And watching these two very talented actors play these roles is quite amusing. When a peeping tom from an apartment building across the way (Dane Cook) snaps some photos of Earl killing a couple in the middle of their having sex, he bribes him. Not for his money, but for his mentorship – he wants to come along on Earl's next murder. Throw in a sexy detective (Demi Moore) and you've got a good old-fashioned thriller. The ingredients of the picture are familiar and predictable, but you're never quite sure what you're going to end up with in the end. That for me is enough to give Mr. Brooks a moderate recommendation. - Brandon Nease

Movie Review: Perfect Stranger

PERFECT STRANGER (2007)

* (OUT OF FOUR)

An A-list cast featuring one of the most underrated actors of all time, Bruce Willis, and Academy Award winning Halle Berry, and director James Foley, who's done good work in the past with Confidence and Glengarry Glen Ross, couldn't help Perfect Stranger from being a complete stinker and a waste of my time.

Not long after Rowena (Berry) breaks open the case of a corporate scandal, the local newspaper covers it up, driving her to quit her job. Wouldn't you know that on that very same night, she bumps into a woman named Gracie, whom she used to work with, who has "an even bigger story". Gracie was having an affair with Harrison Hill (Willis), the bigwig of a top-notch advertising agency, and things have gotten nasty. Hill, we learn, can't seem to keep his dick in his pants, and for reasons that only the screenwriters can understand, this entices Rowena go and check him out. Once Gracie turns up dead, Rowena and her partner Miles (the also underrated Giovanni Ribisi) find themselves smack-dab in the middle of a murder case with a damn good idea of who's behind it.

Rowena gets an internship job at Hill's advertising company a cooks up a relationship with him in an attempt to get closer to him so they can expose him for the perverted creep/murderer that he is…. DUN-DUN-DA! She starts with seducing him through internet chat rooms, typing sexy dialogue which we get to see on the screen and hear her voice out loud for those of us who are illiterate - the exact people who will think this film is any good (see, you gotta appeal to your target audience's needs). This goes on forever and ever and ever until his relationship with her becomes more personal and out in the open, and then that goes on forever and ever and ever.

And that's about it, lest you want me to reveal the twist ending, which I knew was coming but still didn't care once it arrived. There's also a back-story which reveals itself through flashbacks about Rowena's sexual abuse from her father which has absolutely nothing to do with anything unless you want to parallel the Willis character to him (look, a metaphor) which requires minimal brain power, but is still more than it deserves. All of which adds up to a completely forgettable film that's not worth your nine bucks. - Brandon Nease