The Year in Movies: Complete With Amnesia

The year is standing on its last legs, and for the life of me I can't remember half of the movies I saw this year. The entire first half of the year is completely gone to me; the earliest film I recall seeing in a theater is PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST which can't be right, 'cause didn't that come out in the summer? I forgot six months? Damn!

One of the problems was that many of my most-anticipated films simply haven't come out in wide-release yet. So no decisions or thoughts on PAN'S LABYRINTH, PERFUME: STORY OF A MURDERER, THE HOST, TIDELAND, CHILDREN OF MEN, or CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER.

Add to that the films that, for whatever reason, I just did not get a chance to see, including THE DEPARTED, FEARLESS, VOLVER, BABEL, BORAT, THE PROPOSITION, INSIDE MAN, HARD CANDY, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, or TENACIOUS D AND THE PICK OF DESTINY. I'm trying as fast as I can to catch up with those that have come out on DVD, but with 12.5 hours left in the year (as of this moment), I don't see much progress being made.

So, instead of a Top 10 list or anything, I'll present a few films that really caught my eye this year (not including films I already reviewed on this blog), and maybe post a few links to other people who watched way more movies than I did this year.

In no particular order:

CASINO ROYALE - Damn! What a way to re-invent the Bond franchise! I make no bones about it, this was simply the best Bond movie in 20, 25 years. It takes a while to become that, but when you watch the final moments of the film, you'll see what I mean. A lot of early pot shots were taken when it was announced that blond Daniel Craig was taking over the helm as opposed to early front-runner Clive Owen, and that the franchise was being updated to coincide more with a 21st century style of action film. Who would've thought that meant "place character development over action, and ground the film in a gritty reality while still providing eye-candy galore?" Great action, sexy women and laugh out-loud moments play against deep emotion and tension to provide a great movie.

BRICK - Someone forgot to tell writer/director Rian Johnson that movies about high-school kids solving a murder are suppose to either suck or run weekly on television. BRICK is film noir for the new century: rapid-fire dialogue that doesn't apologize for its rhythms, characters that rise out of shadow and smoke to play archetypes rather than roles, and a protagonist that embodies all the markings of some of the genre's best: Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, and Lawrence Tierney. Joesph Gordon-Levitt shines in yet another role, and finds in BRICK a small movie that should have a large impact on the way films featuring kids are made in the future. This was definitely one of my favorite films of the year.

CLERKS 2 - Did you forget that Kevin Smith, besides making jokes about pop culture and blow jobs, can actually write with heart and compassion? Because if you did, chances are you missed CLERKS 2, which brings Smith back to the his most popular film and provides a chance to show the warmth and heart he brought to both that first film and CHASING AMY. CLERKS 2 doesn't shine because of the humor, or the outrageous comedy, or the always scene-stealing antics of Jay and Silent Bob. It shines because of the small, tender moments that play in between the laughs, the woes and worries of people coming into their 30's and realizing they have no idea where they are or what they're doing, and for having a scene between two friends that plays more real, more heartfelt, and more genuine than anything I've seen in a buddy movie in years. Like CLERKS, this came out at the perfect time for me, right in my early 30's and wondering where I am and what I'm doing. A great Book-end to Smith's Askewinverse.

LADY VENGEANCE - Speaking of book-ends, wow! Off the heels of two powerhouses like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE and OLDBOY, LADY VENGEANCE provides the first hint of relief and closure to Chan-Wook Park's Revenge trilogy of films. Whereas the first film deals with the question of who is more deserving of revenge, and the second one tackles the moral question of casting stones (is our revenge justified in light of our past actions), the third film looks at the results of vengeance. Visually stunning and full of the tricks and moments that make watching any Chan-Wook Park film worthwhile, LADY VENGEANCE serves as a fitting end to an amazing chapter of a director's life.

JUST MY LUCK - I know you're looking at and wondering if I've lost it completely. Don't worry. This is included for a very justifiable reason: this, to my memory, was the WORST film I saw all year. I admit to watching it on an airplane during a trip where the satellite television went on the blink and I finished my book. It would be hard to think of a worse performance this year (did Paris Hilton appear in any movies this year?) - those people who praise Lindsey Lohan for her small role in A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION are wrong. She was merely adequate, and her role could have been played by dozens of more deserving actresses. Please do yourself a favor and bypass this film even if it causes you physical pain to do so. You'll thank me later.

And that's it! There are some more movies I didn't get a chance to write about that were also worth mentioning (and not in a JUST MY LUCK kinda way) - be sure to check out RUINNING SCARED, THE DESCENT, THE PROPOSITION, and, of course, A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION. Just not for the Lindsey Lohan performance.

Be seeing you!

The Year in Movies: Complete With Amnesia

The year is standing on its last legs, and for the life of me I can't remember half of the movies I saw this year. The entire first half of the year is completely gone to me; the earliest film I recall seeing in a theater is PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST which can't be right, 'cause didn't that come out in the summer? I forgot six months? Damn!

One of the problems was that many of my most-anticipated films simply haven't come out in wide-release yet. So no decisions or thoughts on PAN'S LABYRINTH, PERFUME: STORY OF A MURDERER, THE HOST, TIDELAND, CHILDREN OF MEN, or CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER.

Add to that the films that, for whatever reason, I just did not get a chance to see, including THE DEPARTED, FEARLESS, VOLVER, BABEL, BORAT, THE PROPOSITION, INSIDE MAN, HARD CANDY, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, or TENACIOUS D AND THE PICK OF DESTINY. I'm trying as fast as I can to catch up with those that have come out on DVD, but with 12.5 hours left in the year (as of this moment), I don't see much progress being made.

So, instead of a Top 10 list or anything, I'll present a few films that really caught my eye this year (not including films I already reviewed on this blog), and maybe post a few links to other people who watched way more movies than I did this year.

In no particular order:

CASINO ROYALE - Damn! What a way to re-invent the Bond franchise! I make no bones about it, this was simply the best Bond movie in 20, 25 years. It takes a while to become that, but when you watch the final moments of the film, you'll see what I mean. A lot of early pot shots were taken when it was announced that blond Daniel Craig was taking over the helm as opposed to early front-runner Clive Owen, and that the franchise was being updated to coincide more with a 21st century style of action film. Who would've thought that meant "place character development over action, and ground the film in a gritty reality while still providing eye-candy galore?" Great action, sexy women and laugh out-loud moments play against deep emotion and tension to provide a great movie.

BRICK - Someone forgot to tell writer/director Rian Johnson that movies about high-school kids solving a murder are suppose to either suck or run weekly on television. BRICK is film noir for the new century: rapid-fire dialogue that doesn't apologize for its rhythms, characters that rise out of shadow and smoke to play archetypes rather than roles, and a protagonist that embodies all the markings of some of the genre's best: Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, and Lawrence Tierney. Joesph Gordon-Levitt shines in yet another role, and finds in BRICK a small movie that should have a large impact on the way films featuring kids are made in the future. This was definitely one of my favorite films of the year.

CLERKS 2 - Did you forget that Kevin Smith, besides making jokes about pop culture and blow jobs, can actually write with heart and compassion? Because if you did, chances are you missed CLERKS 2, which brings Smith back to the his most popular film and provides a chance to show the warmth and heart he brought to both that first film and CHASING AMY. CLERKS 2 doesn't shine because of the humor, or the outrageous comedy, or the always scene-stealing antics of Jay and Silent Bob. It shines because of the small, tender moments that play in between the laughs, the woes and worries of people coming into their 30's and realizing they have no idea where they are or what they're doing, and for having a scene between two friends that plays more real, more heartfelt, and more genuine than anything I've seen in a buddy movie in years. Like CLERKS, this came out at the perfect time for me, right in my early 30's and wondering where I am and what I'm doing. A great Book-end to Smith's Askewinverse.

LADY VENGEANCE - Speaking of book-ends, wow! Off the heels of two powerhouses like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE and OLDBOY, LADY VENGEANCE provides the first hint of relief and closure to Chan-Wook Park's Revenge trilogy of films. Whereas the first film deals with the question of who is more deserving of revenge, and the second one tackles the moral question of casting stones (is our revenge justified in light of our past actions), the third film looks at the results of vengeance. Visually stunning and full of the tricks and moments that make watching any Chan-Wook Park film worthwhile, LADY VENGEANCE serves as a fitting end to an amazing chapter of a director's life.

JUST MY LUCK - I know you're looking at and wondering if I've lost it completely. Don't worry. This is included for a very justifiable reason: this, to my memory, was the WORST film I saw all year. I admit to watching it on an airplane during a trip where the satellite television went on the blink and I finished my book. It would be hard to think of a worse performance this year (did Paris Hilton appear in any movies this year?) - those people who praise Lindsey Lohan for her small role in A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION are wrong. She was merely adequate, and her role could have been played by dozens of more deserving actresses. Please do yourself a favor and bypass this film even if it causes you physical pain to do so. You'll thank me later.

And that's it! There are some more movies I didn't get a chance to write about that were also worth mentioning (and not in a JUST MY LUCK kinda way) - be sure to check out RUINNING SCARED, THE DESCENT, THE PROPOSITION, and, of course, A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION. Just not for the Lindsey Lohan performance.

Be seeing you!

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

The set-up is unique, but the questions posed in STRANGER THAN FICTION are those many have had to face: "What do you do when you know you're going to die? "

If that was the only question driving the actions of Harold Crik, a shy, sweet, lonely tax auditor for the IRS who suddenly begins to hear his life narrated, the movie might have been amusing, perhaps even decent. Instead, it transcends the confines of a simple comedy by analyzing the mechanics of Harold's own life to further ask: "Is the life you've been leading worth continuing, knowing the reasons behind your death?"

I won't go too much into describing the plot: for reasons known later Harold Crik's (played by Will Ferrel) ordinary clockwork life is turned upside-down when his watch begins to act funny. At the same time, he begins to hear a disembodied voice narrating his life as if he were the main character in a book. The voice is more an annoyance than anything else until one morning the voice says, "Little did he know that events had been set in motion that would lead to his imminent death."

Across town, Emma Thompson plays Karen Eiffel, a reclusive novelist attempting to overcome Writer's Block and finish her first novel in ten years, Death and Taxes, about a lonely IRS agent named Harold Crik. The problem? All of her main characters die at the end of her books, and she has just figured out a way to kill Harold Crik.

As Harold begins to overcome his timid life to embrace the things he's neglected, Will Ferrel turns in an exceptional performance, relying on the humanity of his character and the pathos of his situation to filter through the more comedic elements of the film. He's done drama before (notably WINTER PASSING), but here he makes the kind of turn Jim Carey did in THE TRUMAN SHOW and, to a lesser extent, Tom Hanks did in NOTHING IN COMMON.

Thompson and Dustin Hoffman also do well with their supporting roles. Hoffman in particular plays the quirky comedy well - as he gets older his features and mannerisms lend themselves more to comedy than drama. I didn't think it was possible that Maggie Gyllenhaal could be even more adorable, but here she proves me wrong as the love interest for Ferrel, which should not work on paper, but works wonderfully in the film.

Marc Foster, who has now defied genre labels with his last three films (MONSTER'S BALL, FINDING NEVERLAND and STAY) manages a fine balancing act, never letting the comedy fall too broadly, and letting every moment serve the story as a whole. His visual representation of Harold's thought processes throughout the film are a highlight of one of the best mainstream movies this year.

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

The set-up is unique, but the questions posed in STRANGER THAN FICTION are those many have had to face: "What do you do when you know you're going to die? "

If that was the only question driving the actions of Harold Crik, a shy, sweet, lonely tax auditor for the IRS who suddenly begins to hear his life narrated, the movie might have been amusing, perhaps even decent. Instead, it transcends the confines of a simple comedy by analyzing the mechanics of Harold's own life to further ask: "Is the life you've been leading worth continuing, knowing the reasons behind your death?"

I won't go too much into describing the plot: for reasons known later Harold Crik's (played by Will Ferrel) ordinary clockwork life is turned upside-down when his watch begins to act funny. At the same time, he begins to hear a disembodied voice narrating his life as if he were the main character in a book. The voice is more an annoyance than anything else until one morning the voice says, "Little did he know that events had been set in motion that would lead to his imminent death."

Across town, Emma Thompson plays Karen Eiffel, a reclusive novelist attempting to overcome Writer's Block and finish her first novel in ten years, Death and Taxes, about a lonely IRS agent named Harold Crik. The problem? All of her main characters die at the end of her books, and she has just figured out a way to kill Harold Crik.

As Harold begins to overcome his timid life to embrace the things he's neglected, Will Ferrel turns in an exceptional performance, relying on the humanity of his character and the pathos of his situation to filter through the more comedic elements of the film. He's done drama before (notably WINTER PASSING), but here he makes the kind of turn Jim Carey did in THE TRUMAN SHOW and, to a lesser extent, Tom Hanks did in NOTHING IN COMMON.

Thompson and Dustin Hoffman also do well with their supporting roles. Hoffman in particular plays the quirky comedy well - as he gets older his features and mannerisms lend themselves more to comedy than drama. I didn't think it was possible that Maggie Gyllenhaal could be even more adorable, but here she proves me wrong as the love interest for Ferrel, which should not work on paper, but works wonderfully in the film.

Marc Foster, who has now defied genre labels with his last three films (MONSTER'S BALL, FINDING NEVERLAND and STAY) manages a fine balancing act, never letting the comedy fall too broadly, and letting every moment serve the story as a whole. His visual representation of Harold's thought processes throughout the film are a highlight of one of the best mainstream movies this year.

The Fountain (2006)

There are two things that need saying up front before commencing with the review:

1. This is a hard film for me to recommend to a general audience.
2. This is one of the most beautiful, moving films I've seen this year.

Explanations may be in order.

Darren Aronofsky's new film THE FOUNTAIN explores the search to stave off death, to prolong life, and to reconcile with a world where loneliness is an inevitable aftermath of the connection of true love. It's also a film about time, how lifetimes can be encapsulated in a book, and how the time we have is never time enough. It's a poem of sound and image, a romance and a tragedy, and a shout to a world whose concepts of love and loss have been spoon-fed to them by prime-time soap operas on the CW and films starring Lindsey Lohan.

Aronofsky shows how much he's learned from his experience adapting Hubert Selby's REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and presents a story that unfurls through dream logic and multiple narratives that are at heart the same story: Tom (Hugh Jackman in his best role) and Izzi (Rachel Weisz - also brilliant) are in love and know that there isn't enough time: Izzi is dying of cancer and Tom, a brilliant scientist, is trying more and more exotic experiments in his lab to halt the growth of the tumor, to gain more time, more life, even as he neglects Izzi when she needs him most. He finds strange results from a rare plant found somewhere in South America, but will it save Izzi?

Izzi is also trying to complete her work with the little time she has left - a novel that takes place 500 years earlier about a young Spanish conquistador named Tomas (also played by Jackman) in search of a legendary Tree of Life that promises eternal life for his Queen, Isabel (also played by Weisz).

How these two tales intertwine with the third, in which a man (Jackman in his most vulnerable part) 1500 years in the future flies through space in a bubble containing the Tree of Life turn THE FOUNTAIN into something more than a loose narrative, something to be experienced rather than analyzed during its initial viewing. Where Tom is going, how he got there, and what he's searching for all lead to the same end, the same struggle that people who have ever known love seek to answer: how to hold on a little longer, and what can you do when your grasp begins to slip...

The road to bring THE FOUNTAIN to the screen has a long and storied history itself - the roles were originally to be played by Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchette. How that fell apart, how the movie stalled for years only to ultimately be re-written for a budget half the size and with new leads Jackman and Weisz all seemed to have focused Aronofsky to make the best film of career - one that does not hold easy answers or allows itself to be pigeon-holed into a specific genre.

And that's why even though I loved it, I find it hard to openly recommend. I wish I could get more people to see it, but the truth of the matter is this so different than what you would typically find in mainstream movie theaters that the spoon-fed crowd is going to hate this. And that's too bad, because I think it you're willing to dig a little, to be challenged by a film that seeks to circumscribe conventional narrative, you'll find in THE FOUNTAIN one of the most beautiful, expressive movies playing this year.

The Fountain (2006)

There are two things that need saying up front before commencing with the review:

1. This is a hard film for me to recommend to a general audience.
2. This is one of the most beautiful, moving films I've seen this year.

Explanations may be in order.

Darren Aronofsky's new film THE FOUNTAIN explores the search to stave off death, to prolong life, and to reconcile with a world where loneliness is an inevitable aftermath of the connection of true love. It's also a film about time, how lifetimes can be encapsulated in a book, and how the time we have is never time enough. It's a poem of sound and image, a romance and a tragedy, and a shout to a world whose concepts of love and loss have been spoon-fed to them by prime-time soap operas on the CW and films starring Lindsey Lohan.

Aronofsky shows how much he's learned from his experience adapting Hubert Selby's REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and presents a story that unfurls through dream logic and multiple narratives that are at heart the same story: Tom (Hugh Jackman in his best role) and Izzi (Rachel Weisz - also brilliant) are in love and know that there isn't enough time: Izzi is dying of cancer and Tom, a brilliant scientist, is trying more and more exotic experiments in his lab to halt the growth of the tumor, to gain more time, more life, even as he neglects Izzi when she needs him most. He finds strange results from a rare plant found somewhere in South America, but will it save Izzi?

Izzi is also trying to complete her work with the little time she has left - a novel that takes place 500 years earlier about a young Spanish conquistador named Tomas (also played by Jackman) in search of a legendary Tree of Life that promises eternal life for his Queen, Isabel (also played by Weisz).

How these two tales intertwine with the third, in which a man (Jackman in his most vulnerable part) 1500 years in the future flies through space in a bubble containing the Tree of Life turn THE FOUNTAIN into something more than a loose narrative, something to be experienced rather than analyzed during its initial viewing. Where Tom is going, how he got there, and what he's searching for all lead to the same end, the same struggle that people who have ever known love seek to answer: how to hold on a little longer, and what can you do when your grasp begins to slip...

The road to bring THE FOUNTAIN to the screen has a long and storied history itself - the roles were originally to be played by Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchette. How that fell apart, how the movie stalled for years only to ultimately be re-written for a budget half the size and with new leads Jackman and Weisz all seemed to have focused Aronofsky to make the best film of career - one that does not hold easy answers or allows itself to be pigeon-holed into a specific genre.

And that's why even though I loved it, I find it hard to openly recommend. I wish I could get more people to see it, but the truth of the matter is this so different than what you would typically find in mainstream movie theaters that the spoon-fed crowd is going to hate this. And that's too bad, because I think it you're willing to dig a little, to be challenged by a film that seeks to circumscribe conventional narrative, you'll find in THE FOUNTAIN one of the most beautiful, expressive movies playing this year.

The Evil Dead (1982)

So much has been written about EVIL DEAD 2: DEAD BY DAWN (and rightly so) that sometimes it's easy to forget that before we had an Ash who spouted such quips as "Swallow this" and "Groovy," while elevating the art of the pratfall to new heights, we had Ashley, who basically cowers in fear for 75+ minutes until he's forced by circumstance to fight back, only to be destroyed by the terror in the woods...

The original EVIL DEAD, filmed in 1979 but not released until 1982, is a far cry from it's remake/sequel. The intent of buds Sam Raimi, Rob Tapert and Bruce Campbell was simple - to create a horror experience that started at "unrelenting" and only moved up from there. The setup is purposefully short: five college friends drive to an old cabin in the woods for some fun away from school. Once there they find a dusty tape recorder that when played reawakens the evil forces that live in the woods. The remainder of the movie is spent building layer upon layer of gore and horror on each member of the group until only one man remains...

While today the effects and make-up seem severely dated, there are still more than enough moments to cause viewers to look away: Shelly's rape and possession by the forest is incredibly uncomfortable to watch. Her later stabbing of Linda in the heel with a pencil looks fake but revolting at the same time - likewise the gorging of Scott's (the other guy) eyes. Unlike it's predecessor, the first EVIL DEAD has no real intention of being tongue-in-cheek; the emphasis is always on mounting terror.

However, the charm and allure of EVIL DEAD isn't the what or the why of the movie; it's the how. Specifically, how a young, first time feature director was able to turn movie-making on its head with his innovative camera-work and eye for motion. Raimi is the real star here. Whether it's strapping the camera to a plank and ramming it through a window, shooting from the roof of a moving van, or floating across a lake on a raft being dragged by your producer and star, Raimi makes up for his minuscule budget by creating a signature style that would be a trademark of many of his later films, including both SPIDER-MAN movies (anyone who watches the scene in SPIDER-MAN 2 where Doc Ock comes back to life on the operating table will know right away what I'm talking about).

Bruce Campbell here is merely a shadow of what he will eventually do with the role of Ash. Here his role is supposed to be the coward - the one who is paralyzed with fear, unable to act. It makes it that much stronger a shock when you find that he's the only one left standing at the end of the movie (although, admittedly he doesn't stand for long as the closing shot shows). The lack of any strong characters I think hinders the movie a bit - your focus is always more on trying to keep up with the pace rather than worrying about character development. One of the many great improvements of EVIL DEAD 2 is the build up of everyone involved - humans and Deadites alike.

Short, fast, furious (but without the cars) - EVIL DEAD 24 years later still delivers on the words famously emblazoned on the poster by Stephen King:

"...The most ferociously original horror movie of the year..."

The Evil Dead (1982)

So much has been written about EVIL DEAD 2: DEAD BY DAWN (and rightly so) that sometimes it's easy to forget that before we had an Ash who spouted such quips as "Swallow this" and "Groovy," while elevating the art of the pratfall to new heights, we had Ashley, who basically cowers in fear for 75+ minutes until he's forced by circumstance to fight back, only to be destroyed by the terror in the woods...

The original EVIL DEAD, filmed in 1979 but not released until 1982, is a far cry from it's remake/sequel. The intent of buds Sam Raimi, Rob Tapert and Bruce Campbell was simple - to create a horror experience that started at "unrelenting" and only moved up from there. The setup is purposefully short: five college friends drive to an old cabin in the woods for some fun away from school. Once there they find a dusty tape recorder that when played reawakens the evil forces that live in the woods. The remainder of the movie is spent building layer upon layer of gore and horror on each member of the group until only one man remains...

While today the effects and make-up seem severely dated, there are still more than enough moments to cause viewers to look away: Shelly's rape and possession by the forest is incredibly uncomfortable to watch. Her later stabbing of Linda in the heel with a pencil looks fake but revolting at the same time - likewise the gorging of Scott's (the other guy) eyes. Unlike it's predecessor, the first EVIL DEAD has no real intention of being tongue-in-cheek; the emphasis is always on mounting terror.

However, the charm and allure of EVIL DEAD isn't the what or the why of the movie; it's the how. Specifically, how a young, first time feature director was able to turn movie-making on its head with his innovative camera-work and eye for motion. Raimi is the real star here. Whether it's strapping the camera to a plank and ramming it through a window, shooting from the roof of a moving van, or floating across a lake on a raft being dragged by your producer and star, Raimi makes up for his minuscule budget by creating a signature style that would be a trademark of many of his later films, including both SPIDER-MAN movies (anyone who watches the scene in SPIDER-MAN 2 where Doc Ock comes back to life on the operating table will know right away what I'm talking about).

Bruce Campbell here is merely a shadow of what he will eventually do with the role of Ash. Here his role is supposed to be the coward - the one who is paralyzed with fear, unable to act. It makes it that much stronger a shock when you find that he's the only one left standing at the end of the movie (although, admittedly he doesn't stand for long as the closing shot shows). The lack of any strong characters I think hinders the movie a bit - your focus is always more on trying to keep up with the pace rather than worrying about character development. One of the many great improvements of EVIL DEAD 2 is the build up of everyone involved - humans and Deadites alike.

Short, fast, furious (but without the cars) - EVIL DEAD 24 years later still delivers on the words famously emblazoned on the poster by Stephen King:

"...The most ferociously original horror movie of the year..."

Broken Lizard's Club Dread (2004)

I know a lot of people that swear by the comedy of Broken Lizard. And man, I tried watching SUPER TROOPERS. Saw it twice so far, and while I think it's funny, I wasn't ready to proclaim them the next coming or anything. In this I know I differ with a lot of people.

I also know I'm going to differ with those same people for another reason: I loved CLUB DREAD, and find it in leaps and bounds the better film.

I think the reason it works (certainly much better than FEAST) is because, instead of taking a horror film and trying to make it funny, they took a comedy and made it horrific. And by "horrific" I mean "as scary as your typical FRIDAY THE 13TH film" which was the point, even nodding to the film in question in a hilarious boat scene.

Vacationers travelling to Pleasure Island are coming for two things: getting drunk and getting laid. And that exactly what Coconut Pete (Bill Paxton) and his staff are there to provide - it's Heaven if Heaven was run by the dude who puts out those Girls Gone Wild videos. Unfortunately, the wacky staff (played by the Broken Lizard troop) pissed somebody off with their antics, because now they're slowly being murdered one by one. Is it the crazy obsessive gymnast? The put-upon nephew of Coconut Pete? Or the new masseuse, fresh off the boat and with secrets of his own?

The movie benefits from a few things - as always the chemistry between the cast is great. Roles are reversed from the earlier SUPER TROOPERS, with director Jay Chandrasekhar this time playing the prick-ish Putnam, and scene stealer Kevin Heffernan taking the heroic lead. The majority of the comedy is character-driven, playing to everyone's advantage. And the troop brings enough great lines so that the rest of cast isn't left behind as window dressing, though they of course save the best for themselves. I will forever attempt to use the line "Who else knew he was uncircumcised, and smelled of oranges?"

As for the scares, they're firmly rooted in the slasher pics of the early 80's, but instead of playing the horror off for laughs, Chandrasekhar wisely plays them straight most of the time. The blood and gore is realistic and frightening, even when it's spurting from a man dressed as a pear:

Please, someone put together a version of Pac-Man like this NOW, please!

You really have no idea who the killer is, and there's no reason to try and guess in CLUB DREAD. The focus here is purely on the laughs; any screams or jumps are free of charge. Perfectly fun movie, and I'm convinced I have to check out SUPER TROOPERS again.

Broken Lizard's Club Dread (2004)

I know a lot of people that swear by the comedy of Broken Lizard. And man, I tried watching SUPER TROOPERS. Saw it twice so far, and while I think it's funny, I wasn't ready to proclaim them the next coming or anything. In this I know I differ with a lot of people.

I also know I'm going to differ with those same people for another reason: I loved CLUB DREAD, and find it in leaps and bounds the better film.

I think the reason it works (certainly much better than FEAST) is because, instead of taking a horror film and trying to make it funny, they took a comedy and made it horrific. And by "horrific" I mean "as scary as your typical FRIDAY THE 13TH film" which was the point, even nodding to the film in question in a hilarious boat scene.

Vacationers travelling to Pleasure Island are coming for two things: getting drunk and getting laid. And that exactly what Coconut Pete (Bill Paxton) and his staff are there to provide - it's Heaven if Heaven was run by the dude who puts out those Girls Gone Wild videos. Unfortunately, the wacky staff (played by the Broken Lizard troop) pissed somebody off with their antics, because now they're slowly being murdered one by one. Is it the crazy obsessive gymnast? The put-upon nephew of Coconut Pete? Or the new masseuse, fresh off the boat and with secrets of his own?

The movie benefits from a few things - as always the chemistry between the cast is great. Roles are reversed from the earlier SUPER TROOPERS, with director Jay Chandrasekhar this time playing the prick-ish Putnam, and scene stealer Kevin Heffernan taking the heroic lead. The majority of the comedy is character-driven, playing to everyone's advantage. And the troop brings enough great lines so that the rest of cast isn't left behind as window dressing, though they of course save the best for themselves. I will forever attempt to use the line "Who else knew he was uncircumcised, and smelled of oranges?"

As for the scares, they're firmly rooted in the slasher pics of the early 80's, but instead of playing the horror off for laughs, Chandrasekhar wisely plays them straight most of the time. The blood and gore is realistic and frightening, even when it's spurting from a man dressed as a pear:

Please, someone put together a version of Pac-Man like this NOW, please!

You really have no idea who the killer is, and there's no reason to try and guess in CLUB DREAD. The focus here is purely on the laughs; any screams or jumps are free of charge. Perfectly fun movie, and I'm convinced I have to check out SUPER TROOPERS again.

The Mask of Fu Manchu (1932)

For casual moviegoers living in a world of 200 million dollar blockbusters, IMAX 3-D theaters, entire movies animated by computers, even films from just 30 years ago may be hard to accept, let alone movies from 60 and 70 years ago. The need to suspend disbelief is greater for these films; you're not just accepting what fantastic elements may appear, you have to accept the patter of language, the play of shadow and light in the various black and white worlds the movies inhabit. Without this suspension, this willingness to allow yourself to become engrossed in the flicker of a bye gone era, you only see the scratches in the film, the painted backdrops, the zipper in the costume.

But let yourself fall into the rhythms of this celluloid world, and you see something else entirely.

I grew up with this mentality. Many of my earliest memories (outlined here in a previous post) center around watching movies with my father, who came to America when he was a child and devoured the films of Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, Errol Flynn. Watching those films with me was a way for him to remember one of the few joys of his childhood (growing up a German immigrant only 10 years after WWII wasn't the easiest thing to do). And maybe part of the love I have for watching older movies is the memory it brings of my own childhood, laying down with my head crooked in his elbow as we were both dazzled by what played on the television.

So it's an early Sunday morning in late October 2006. I pop in THE MASK OF FU MANCHU, curl up with the coffee I picked up at 7-11, and promptly fall back 30 years.

FU MANCHU is really more action than horror; think of it as a precursor to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. The British government hires a group of adventurers in a race against time to recover the lost tomb of Genghis Khan. The rush? It's also being sought by the fiendish Fu Manchu, deliciously played by Boris Karloff. Fu Manchu believes that by obtaining the relics found inside the tomb, namely the Golden Mask, he will become the reincarnation of Khan and be able to rally the Asian countries behind him in a bid for world domination.

The more I see of Boris Karloff, the more I appreciate just how brilliant an actor he was. It doesn't matter how much make-up is caked on, how bad the dialog is: once he appears on screen you are completely riveted. And his first appearance in FU MANCHU is a doozy: a close-up of him in full Asian makeup, in his lab. A distorted mirror immediately to his left twists and amplifies his face, displaying his dual nature as genius scholar and mad torturer. Both sides of his personality appear early on - upon capturing the heroine's father he reminds him that he should be addressed as "Doctor" after listing his educational background. The torture of this same man later further shows his mad brilliance: the father is strapped under a large bell that constantly chimes; when thirsty, Fu Manchu brings him water, but it's filled with salt.

And if you think Karloff is evil as Fu Manchu, wait until you see a young Myrna Loy (later to be Nora Charles in the excellent THIN MAN series) as his diabolical daughter. Watch the look on her face as she screams "Faster! FASTER!!" as her servants whip the young hero, who has been captured after being tricked into delivering the sword and mask into Manchu's hands. For a glimpse of the makeup used to transform Loy into her character, see below:

Mummy attacks, evil laboratories, exotic locations and ancient artifacts - everything here for a great time. FU MANCHU may be suffer slightly for falling under the shadow of Karloff's other horror movie to come out the same year (some obscure film called FRANKENSTEIN), but there's a lot of fun and whimsy on display here, even if it's more an adventure film that an outright horror film.

But none of that really mattered to me. Because while the movie played its lights across the room, I was 7 years old again, curled up with my dad again, enchanted as I always was, and probably always will be.