Santikos Cine-opsis

Rob Zombie’s “Halloween II” picks up exactly where his first stab at the Halloween franchise left off…both in plot and in style.  We see the aftermath of Michael Myers’ killing spree, his sister walking down the middle of a street soaked in blood and holding the gun she used to shoot her brother.  We see Myers’ giant frame loaded into the coroner’s van and taken off to the morgue.  We know, of course, that it will never get there.  We know that Myers will wake up, pound out of the back of the door, and snap off the heads of the necrophiliac morticians and begin another gore-filled tirade across the countryside.

What we don’t know is that the van hits a cow on the road and cow brains get splattered all over the highway.  That was a surprise. Thanks for that, Rob Zombie.  Thanks for the cow brains.  I really needed to see that.   That was necessary for your artistic vision to be complete, I’m sure.

These excessive departures are not prevalent in “Halloween II”, but they are distracting.  However, as a whole, I think that “Halloween II” is every bit as deeply disturbing and frightening as the first.  And, it will be every bit as hated.  Zombie’s first Halloween movie was destroyed by most critics, who felt it was repulsive and nihilistic.  But a few saw the method behind Zombie’s madness and enjoyed the shift of perspective from Michael Myers as immortal slasher to Myers as a wounded child in a goliath’s body.  A goliath who stabs with the force of a jackhammer and is able to hide his 7-foot frame  behind tiny little trees as he sneaks in for his next kill.

And there are plenty of kills.  But Zombie’s murders lack the frivolity of other bloodthirsty filmmakers.  There’s no mirth or satisfaction taken in the killing, nor are the kills very clever or entertaining.  They’re just murders…brutal, angry, senseless murders.  This isn’t “Machine Girl” or “Final Destination”.  It’s not even “House of 1,000 Corpses”, which was scary and funny.  But “Halloween II” is not meant to entertain…it’s meant to freak you out.

And that might explain why most critics hate Zombie’s version of the Halloween franchise.  These are disturbed people who die in horrible ways.  It frightens people in a darker way than most “gotcha” horror movies where scary villains jump out on screen and freak you out.  Zombie says it best in the film, when a horror junkie asks for Dr. Lumis’ autograph.  He says that Michael Myers really terrorizes the souls of his victims.  Zombie’s “Halloween” terrorizes the souls of the audience…and that’s hard for some critics to endorse.  I however, think that the latest “Halloween” movie is just as dark and deeply terrifying as the last, and if you enjoy looking down into the abyss of madness, this is the movie that will take you down that rabbit hole.

But next time, leave out the cow brains, ok Rob?

One of the best parts of reviewing movies five days after they come out is that I get to read all the other critics just like everybody else.  One of the worst parts when you’re the last kid to jump in the pool, it’s hard to find a clean spot.  SO, I decided to run what the other critics have said about Quentin Tarantino’s latest movie, “Inglourious Basterds” through a filter, and strain out some of the warm water…so to speak.

I do this because frankly, I don’t agree with many of my colleagues and I think it’s important to separate whose responses make sense and whose don’t so audiences can better make up their minds on whether or not to go see it, and what they think when they do. Not only that, but since Tarantino has made a living taking other people’s movies and recycling them through his own madcap prism, I figured it would only be fitting that I review his film by using other critics’ words.

Who am I to decide who among my fellow critics is right or wrong?  The guy writing this blog, that’s who!

So, here is my take on what some of the folks on rottentomatoes.com had to say about “Inglourious Basterds.”

I agree with Betty Jo Tucker from ReelTalk Movie Reviews that “Christoph Waltz delivers one of the most brilliant portrayals of a villain I’ve seen since Anthony Hopkins transformed himself into Hannibal Lecter.”  I also almost agree with Daily Express scribe Allan Hunter’s glowing review of Waltz’s character, saying “His performance is a credible candidate for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He is the best thing in this patchy, overlong but ridiculously enjoyable return to form for the bad boy of American cinema.”  I agree with everything in that except the “overlong” bit.  Although “Basterds” is 2 and a half hours plus, the time flies by, and you’re out of the theater before you know it (with the exception of a few scenes where, admittedly, Tarantino indulges).

But then, we weren’t exactly the first to point out the Austrian-born Waltz’s triumphant performance as the menacingly brilliant SS captain known as “The Jew Hunter”.  Waltz doesn’t miss a beat, and has already danced off with the best actor prize from this year’s Cannes Film Festival (and that’s the last dance pun from me, I promise).   So it’s no stretch to say that Oscar gold could be in his future.  Every time Waltz enters the screen, the audience tenses up, and the drama heightens.  I don’t know if I can remember a villain who could reduce heroins to tears by feeding them strudel and creme (trust me, it works in the movie).

So we’ve all agreed that Waltz is fantastic.  But I don’t agree with Arizona Daily Star movie guy Phil Villarreal that “Basterds” is “By far the best World War II film I’ve ever seen”.  It’s not the best WWII film I’ve ever seen, Phil, and I’m sure you’ve seen way more than me.  Cut down on the hyperbole, man.  You’re better than that.  Look, this may be Tarantino’s “Schindler’s List”, but it’s not Spielberg’s “Schidler’s List”.  “Schindler’s List” makes you angry at the Nazis’ cruelty.  “Basterds” makes you laugh at cruelty done to Nazis.  The moral lesson in that should be obvious.  What “Basterds” is,  is “Damn Gud Fun”, which is what Apollo Guide’s Dan Jardin called it.  But where’s your umlaut, Dan??  Slacker!!

I agree with all the other critics who say that its an amazing and fun end to the 2009 summer movie season, and I take to task all the buttkissing critics who say things like “it’s his best movie since ‘Pulp Fiction!’”, or “Finally!  A Tarantino movie that has a deeper meaning!”

NO!  It is not and it does not.  Hell, it’s half the movie that “District 9″ was in twice the running time!! (Seriously, go see “District 9″!) “Inglourious Basterds” is giving gorefans what they want while laughing at them for wanting it.   It’s an audience laughing like hyenas at Brad Pitt and Eli Roth as they perfect the cocky swagger of G.I.s who don’t have to play by any rules but their own.  It’s grinding your teeth in suspense as the daring U.S. spies engage a hardboiled member of the SS in a bizarre German idiot poker drinking game version of 20 questions.  It’s loving the visual spectacle of a theater in flames while machine guns blaze from the opera seats.  It’s marvelling at and hating Christoph Waltz’s Nazi equivolent of Sherlock Holmes.

But it’s not a masterpiece, and neither the critics nor Brad Pitt’s final lines of the film will convince me otherwise.   And as long as they don’t convince you, you’ll have a great time watching “Inglourious Basterds”.

Oh.  AND don’t bring your 10-year old with you, either.  Seriously, lady…what the hell were you thinking?  This is Tarantino, not Transformers.

In the past few weeks, I’ve gotten to see two movies about American armed troops and their exploits around the globe; “The Hurt Locker” and “G.I. Joe: the Rise of Cobra.”   While both are movies about war and both have plenty of action, I consider the latter  to be a “war movie” and the former to be an “action movie”.  And while the war movie was clearly superior, the action movie is by far the more popular film.  Here’s my question, and I’d appreciate comments on this: Could movies like “The Hurt Locker” ever have the same success as films like “G.I. Joe”?

Now, one way of looking at this is that high-quality movies about war have already been successful.  One could point to films like “Saving Private Ryan” (which both won five oscars and made $216M, the highest grossing film of 1998).  Now, “Ryan” was made by Spielberg and had a star like Tom Hanks.  But even without a big name star, “G.I. Joe” managed to pull down close to $100M in its first two weeks.

Others could say that the director is the key.  “Inglourious Basterds” wouldn’t have nearly the excitement around it if Quentin Tarantino wasn’t behind the wheel.  In fact, if we didn’t know it was by Tarantino, the previews for “Basterds” would look almost silly.  But Tarantino can get away with things like that, and while Kathryn Bigelow may be known by some as the director of “Point Break”, she hardly has the clout to get people in the seats on name recognition alone.   However, how many casual movie-goers know the name “Stephen Sommers” without hearing it attached to “the director of ‘The Mummy’”?  My guess is not many.  So “G.I. Joe” has proven once again that you don’t need a big name actor or director (or even premise) to bring in viewers.

Maybe it’s demand?  The “G.I. Joe” toys have been around almost as long as Barbie, and families know that they can take their kids to a “G.I. Joe” movie and everybody will have fun.  But a movie doesn’t need to be a crowd pleaser to bring in the crowds.  “Sin City” thrived on the nerd crowd and won the box office its opening week, despite being geared towards a relatively niche audience.

Which leaves me with one thing: studio backing.  “Saving Private Ryan” had dreamworks on its side.  Big companies like Paramount and The Weinstein Company promoted the heck out of “G.I. Joe” and “Inglourious Basterds”.  Summit Entertainment chose to take a different approach with “The Hurt Locker,” opening it in select cities in art house theaters.  Now,  Summit is smaller than Paramount, obviously, so maybe they couldn’t take such a risk.  But there is no reward without risk, and I have to believe that people are smart enough to choose to see an interesting, exciting, and thought-provoking film like “The Hurt Locker” if they are properly informed about it beforehand.  But if a big studio backed “The Hurt Locker”, then it would have those things, and it wouldn’t be the little gem of an indie war movie that’s wowing critics and garnering awards acclaim. It would be a big-budget behemoth like “Saving Private Ryan” and I wouldn’t have to sing its praises in my blog to get people to go see it.

I guess it’s just the way of the movie world, that silly movies like “G.I. Joe” can coast by on big explosions and name recognition but smaller films like “The Hurt Locker” have to fight for each viewer.  But it would be nice if films like “Hurt Locker” got some love from viewers BEFORE awards season.

John Hughes will undoubtedly be remembered by most of the entertainment obit writers as “the influential director of ‘The Breakfast Club’ and other ’80s comedies.”  That’s because it’s easy, and because it’s honestly what most people remember him doing.  But it’s also a bit disrespectful to Hughes, who was far more influential as a writer than as a director.

I know I’m being blasphemous to those who grew up in the ’80s and were able to trace Hughes’ directorial career as it happened.  But really, looking back on it, what made those movies great was the writing.  Hughes as a director was able to step out of the way and allow his vision to breathe.  But many of the films he wrote but didn’t direct are still great comedies.  “National Lampoon’s Vacation”, “The Great Outdoors”, “Home Alone”…all really funny and succesful films!

To be clear, I’m not referring to “Edmond Dantes”, the pseudonym that Hughes used to pen such dreck as “Drillbit Taylor” and “Maid In Manhatten”.  Hughes fell off in the ’90s and ’00s, and thats ok.  Everybody has their peak, and his was 83-91.  But what a peak!  Between those years, Hughes wrote 19 screenplays, and directed 8 of them.   And most of them were well received commercially and critically.

Most critics say that Hughes had the ability to create real characters that audiences bond with, making the drama deeper and the laughs louder.  This is true.  But those characters were written, those situations conceived, by John Hughes the writer.  The way Hughes is being remembered strikes at the heart of one of the movie industry’s longest oldests truths…and deepest flaws.  Writers are not as valued as directors, and writer/directors are remembered as directors, not writers, even though a great writer can have a mediocre director make a great movie out of his script, where a great director can’t get get much out of a mediocre piece of work.

Hopefully, a balance will be struck in the coming days, and Hughes the writer will get his due.  But more likely, Hughes will go down in history as a comedy director, and writers who don’t direct their own work will still have to fight for their paychecks.  But even if that happens, John Hughes paved the way for contemporary comedy writers and directors to succeed.  If Judd Apatow and Kevin Smith don’t throw flowers on Hughes’ grave, all is not right with the universe.

Whoops!  My bad!  I saw a movie this week that opened up in over 1200 theaters…and apparently, I was the only one.  “The Collector” grossed just over $3.6 million in its opening weekend, putting it just below “Transformers 2″, which is in its 6th week.

Should I even let you know what I think about it”?  It wasn’t a great movie, and it will obviously be an irrelevent movie by Monday morning, and available in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart by September.  Why?  Was it the lack of any recognizable talent?  Poor marketing?  Or were people just bored by the idea of another scary-trap-laden torture porn?  Probably.

Whatever it was, I know it wasn’t the premise.  The idea of a cash-strapped thief breaking into a home only to find a sadistic murderer ripping peoples’ teeth out is a promising way to start a horror film.  But then, “The Collector” takes a bizarre turn into “Saw”-ville, and I’m still trying to figure out why.    Why did this guy have to rig the whole house with over-the-top torture traps?  He already had his prey locked up in the basement.  He didn’t expect any company.  And these things would take time to set up, but the film makes it clear that the thief scoped the house in the afternoon then returned that same night.  Setting the traps then felt unbelievably artificial and unnecessary, a stylish departure from a concept that, until that point, had been striving for real scares and had potential to deliver.  I might be old-fashioned, but isn’t a knife-wielding maniac in bondage gear binding people to bathtubs scary enough?  And, as long as I’m complaining, I’d like to see the thief with a heart of gold figure out whether he wants the people he’s trying to help to scream or shut up (the four other people who saw the movie this weekend know what I’m talking about).

And just so you don’t misunderstand me, I loved “Zombie Strippers”, so I’m not knocking “The Collector for being unbelievable. I’m knocking it for being inconsistent, and for ruining a believable premise.  Before all the trap-filled ridiculousness, there was a scene in “The Collector” that I really, really liked.  Arkin the thief breaks into the home, and walks up the stairs to the hidden safe with the loot he desires.  Then, the killer walks up the stairs.  Arkin must avoid detection, but while we know he’s hiding from the crazy killer, he doesn’t.  Relying on his wits, he sneaks past the killer and tears down the stairs for the exit…only to find that it’s locked from the inside.  He’s trapped, and he realizes that the person upstairs is not the  yuppie jewelry store broker he assumed he was dodging.  Scary stuff…and believable, as far as horror plotlines go.

Sadly, the writing team known for “Saw 4, 5, and 6″ (that’s a positive?) got bored about 45 minutes in, and decided that they’d throw a bunch of torture scenes in the middle to kill time.  When they did that, they killed their story, and the film’s future.  Audiences were able to avoid the trap this weekend.  Unfortunately, I was not.