The X-Files: I Want to Believe (Theatre) - Jennie

I’m not really the biggest X Files fan. I watched it when I caught it, but was never too enthusiastic about catching it. My wife, to my knowledge, is also only the smallest of casual fans. So why did she want to see it? I’m not entirely sure. Part of the reason had to do with it being the only five dollar movie we hadn’t watched and still wanted to see, but Jennie genuinely wanted to watch it. So with only an inkling of interest we sat down to view this film.

I had read that it was going to be a Monster of the Week (MotW) movie. To explain: some of the best X Files episodes I have seen had nothing to do with conspiracy theories and aliens, but simply highlighted a weird group of people, or a particularly interesting unexplained phenomenon. Mulder and Scully would investigate, get to the bottom of it, though sometimes the resolution was vague, and that would be that. These were dubbed MotW episodes, and as had been reported this film was just such a story.

Scully is approached by a federal agent inquiring about the whereabouts of the, now underground, Mulder so that he may be brought in on a case that had supernatural elements. The following two hours was a very procedural resolution to the case. Mulder and Scully slept together, told each other that they loved one another, but couldn’t act on that love, and eventually came to the conclusion that each of them, in the vaguest of terms, brought out the dark in each other. But other than the slight nods to the series this movie was simply an extended MotW episode.

What baffles me is – why bring the series back to the big screen for something like this? They aren’t trying to resurrect the series to my knowledge. This could have easily been shown on television as a reunion type special and many people would have been happy. And my speculation is that that is what this was supposed to be, but when Fox found out about it they thought they might be able to make some money off of it. But then why release it in summer. It certainly wasn’t the blockbuster popcorn selling edge of the seat thrill ride that summer movies are thought to be. It felt like a fall movie. I could have lengthy discussions on the release of this film, but ultimately I point the finger at Chris Carter.

4 out of 10 – an alright thriller with familiar characters. I’m not entirely sure why or how this movie even came to be, but there it is in all its mundane glory.

Back to the Future Part III (Dvd) - Both

See Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both for full review

6 out of 10: a rather episodic adventure for Marty and the Doc, but retains the feeling of the previous films.

Back to the Future Part II (Dvd) - Both

See Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both for full review

7 out of 10: a relatively interesting look at the future with some heady time travel to keep the fun going

Back to the Future (Dvd) - Both

In the world of movie trilogies I believe, for most people, Back to the Future (BttF) ranks somewhere in the middle. For me it ranks somewhere near the top. I was the perfect age for this to blow my young mind when I first watched it and to this day it holds a place in my heart as being the first set of movies I really could not wait to see as each installment came out. Granted I believe I watched the first one on VHS and caught the last two in the theatre, but still. Jennie had never seen these films so to catch her up on great eighties flicks we watched this on our bored Sunday afternoon. Ghostbusters is next!

The first BttF film still holds up with few glaring eighties moments. These don’t necessarily take away from the enjoyment of the film, but they do date the film. The story holds up as a unique and imaginative plot that reflects the creative decade in which it was made. The intricacies of time travel are dealt with in a theoretically logical way and an attempt at an explanation of time travel allows this movie the latitude to hold my disbelief. While the fact that Marty is lusted after and stalked by his mother may have been a risky plot device, the relationship is played with such delicate humor and innocent teenage angst by Lea Thompson that it is impossible to get too dirty with it. The tightrope that Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis, the writers, walk is awe-inspiring compared with the clunky work of today’s blockbuster scribes.

By not taking the visual effects root and having time travel be an instantaneous blip the movie’s look and feel is only dated by Michael J. Fox’s hair and colloquialisms. The DeLorean still looks like a very cool way to travel through time, and overall the film is as exciting and fun as I had remembered it to be. This is an example of a good story with thoroughly imagined characters being able to hold up against time.

The saga continues with back to back sequels produced and written at the same time. Bob Gale sets up a myriad of dominos to topple as the series completes itself and finds satisfying ways in which to end the tale. I remember as a child liking the second film better than the third film as the second film actually went to the future. Doc explains at one point in time that he has always wanted to explore the future to see where mankind takes itself. This is in fact, why I would want to visit the future and thus my bias is reveled.

Now that I have seen it again I believe the second film is still my favorite but for an entirely different reason. The film has a relatively convoluted plot that twists in and out of itself and even into the first film. The second film holds to the trilogy doctrine as it is the darkest of the three, and this twisted dark tale is satisfying because of its refusal to take the easy road and be The Time Traveling Adventure of Marty and Doc. The third film, while entertaining certainly feels like just such an episode.

The future that is displayed in part two is a bright happy place with a color palette of extreme hues and synthetic clothing. While most of the technologies displayed in this vision are impossible and impractical I found the most glaring inaccuracy to be the clothing. Though I can’t help but think that is simply due to the hyper colors of the late eighties and early nineties bleeding into the clothing designer’s consciousness.

The third film seems to be a self contained adventure that features Doc and Marty in the old west. This isn’t to say that I would have enjoyed another film with Marty fixing 1955, so I guess this is the best that could have been, but I still find it somewhat episodic in nature. There are some lovely call backs to the previous films, some of which are glaring, while others are subtle. One that I feel I missed the first time round was in dark 1985 in which Biff rules Hill Valley as a casino lord he is seen watching a movie in which Clint Eastwood saves his life with a bulletproof vest in an old west shoot out. Tannen loves this at the time but his relative is then fooled in the third film by the very same trick when Marty defeats Buford Tannen. These subtle call backs are what really make this film fantastic as it feels like the adventure is truly a continuation.

I believe this trilogy stands the test of time relatively unscathed. Jennie seemed to really enjoy her first viewing and that is saying a lot as Jennie usually hates older movies (read older than 1995). I myself was completely entertained and was left wanting more as I feel all good movies do. I am glad they have yet to tarnish the honor by making a sequel recently as they have with Indiana Jones, but I anticipate somewhere in Hollywood is a young scribe who is penning the continued adventures of Doc and Marty as I write this, or, hush my mouth, a remake!

Back to the Future - 7 out of 10: still a great film that contains the fun and excitiment I still look for in my blockbusters

Back to the Future Part II - 7 out of 10: a relatively interesting look at the future with some heady time travel to keep the fun going

Back to the Future Part III - 6 out of 10: a rather episodic adventure for Marty and the Doc, but retains the feeling of the previous films.

The Happening (Theatre) - Jennie

Halfway through this movie Jennie leans over to me and whispers, “This is supposed to be camp.” I thought about this for a second. In my mind this movie had been a train wreck: the horrible acting, the ridiculous dialog, the gruesome mutilations. And as Jennifer’s revelation washed over me I immediately got mad at the individuals responsible for this film’s advertisement.

The last film Shyamalan put out suffered from the same problem. Lady in the Water (2006) was fantastic children’s film. It was a little scary for the youngest set, but it was a new fairytale. The Grimm brother’s tales are just as dark and fantastic but we have heard them all many times. Shyamalan created the first true fairytale in years. I went into Lady in the Water expecting what was advertised, a film much like Shyamalan’s previous work, when I didn’t get it I turned on the film. Only after Jennifer and I were leaving the theatre did she explain what he was trying to do. And I realized what a great film and story he had created.

Fast forward a couple of years and Shyamalan’s new film is advertised as, “the directors first R rated film.” Dark stuff, right? Again, I went into the film expecting Shyamalan in his normal state, and again I hated it, till Jennie revealed the real twist. This is Shyamalan doing a 1960’s B movie. In the style of such B movies as They Came From Beyond Space (1967), The Terror (1963), or Attack of the Monsters! (1969) The Happening has a ridiculous horror attacking the protagonists. The advertising should have gone a little something like this:

(in a large flamboyant font each words spins in and spins out before the next word shows up)Horror!
Terror!
(woman shrieks)
Unimaginable Fear!
(show a shot of a massive crowd running and screaming)Voice Over: Stay indoors, keep close to your family, pray for mercy from
(the screen goes black)
The Happening
(pizzicato strings, close up on a woman screaming)

You get my drift. This film is over acted, Mark Wahlberg is hilarious. The dialog is completely over the top and comical. The gruesome suicides are frightening and entertaining. This is Shyamalan doing camp. And he does it well. After “getting it” I enjoyed myself thoroughly. Now, I know it is popular to bag on Shyamalan, but go into this film thinking it is camp and you will enjoy it. Shyamalan is original. In a summer filled with superheros, remakes, and adaptations The Happening is fresh. Enjoy it, because there aren't many originals out there anymore.

Spoiler Alert, there is no twist.

7 out of 10: I loved what Shyamalan was trying to do, he got me to like camp as much as I will, and that aint much.

The Mist (Dvd) - Both

This is the forth Steven King adaptation for Frank Darabont. His previous works include The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and The Green Mile (1999). This leads me to believe he just found out that Steven King actually writes horror novels, but better late than never I guess. Darabont does a pretty good job with his first horror film allowing the horror to be human drama and not just blood and guts, which most horror films rely on these days. He also altered King’s original ending opting for a much grimmer finale.

This film quickly gets to the point. Ten minutes in and we are at our main set piece, a grocery store, and paranoia is brewing. The film is set in a small Maine town where a mist is quickly approaching after a particularly bad thunderstorm. At this ten minute mark a man runs into the grocery store alerting the principle actors to an unknown danger in the mist. The crowded store huddles in fear as the mist surrounds the now barricaded building. There is no further explanation as to why anyone should be afraid of this mist, but everyone buys into it and we begin our standoff. The group realizes, through deadly trial and error, that inhuman beasts inhabit the mist and any attempt to leave the store results in mutilation. The hysteria builds as a religious zealot claims the end is nigh, and converts soon begin to follow her. The level heads begin to plot an escape and while doing so find out that the beasts in the mist are inter-dimensional beings brought to earth through a dimensional-door opened by the military. This sounds ridiculous, but, frankly, I didn’t care. I went along for the ride, and was happy I did so. (On a side note: Turn off your brain sometimes and you will be pleasently surprised.) Eventually a group tries to escape the store and drive hoping they may find an end to the mist. The gas runs out and the survivors, realizing a horrible death awaits if they leave the car, take the quick way out. Since they only have four bullets and five individuals the male lead quickly murders the rest and exits the car screaming for the beasts to come.

This particularly grim ending is just one of the fantastic choices Darabont makes in this adaptation. King’s story ends with the survivors hearing one word out of the scrambled car radio, “Hartford.” They then head towards Hartford and the story ends. Darabont’s ending feels more realistic as it is missing the glimmer of hope. Darabont’s design crew also does an amazing job of making the fantastic creatures that inhabit the mist. My favorite shot in the movie happens as the band of survivors drive towards the unknown and a massive beast the size of a 10 story building walks out of the mist ignoring the small vehicle at its massive feet. On the flip side of the fantastic coin is Darabont’s ability to focus on the drama and horror of mob mentality. The religious zealot is able to be just as horrific and diabolical as the inter-dimensional beasts that rip people limb from limb. This isn’t to say Darbont’s film is perfect. The religious zealot is verbose and boarders on annoying at times. The mob seems all to willing to turn emotionally on a dime. And while the designs for the creatures were intense the effects crew did a particularly crude job in their execution of said designs. As a fan of Sci-Fi take my recommendation with a grain of salt. If you can’t believe in the fantastic don’t bother with this.

6 out of 10 – A satisfying Sci-Fi horror film that uses both human and inhuman horrors to tweak your nerves.

Howard the Duck (OnDemand) - Matt

I have to explain why this movie is even on this list. Notice, this is a Matt pick. Matt Siblo, brother and consistent contributor to this blog’s comments page, is visiting me this weekend as a surprise by my lovely wife and himself.
Now, last time Matt and I visited each other we watched six movies in two days. We love to do this: eat bad food, watch movies, and discuss them. Occasionally other topics sneak in, but these are rare occasions and often happen on the way to a movie. So, when we arrived back home from picking Matt up from the airport and Matt asked to view our offerings OnDemand the pickings were slim. So, Howard the Duck was chosen.

Howard T. Duck lives on a planet inhabited by anthropomorphized ducks whose civilization apparently evolved exactly as ours did; only ducks were the dominant species. Their civilization even has duck related media. This leads to such mallard-enhanced naming schemes as Playduck and Indiana Duck. After a hard day at work Howard sits in an easy chair and is instantly transported through a wormhole. He lands in Cleveland, Ohio and waddles out into our world where he is gawked at as he is a 3 foot walking talking duck. After getting thrown out of a punk rock club, I’m not sure how he got there; he is witness to Lea Thompson’s character’s potential rape. Howard comes to the rescue, I guess, by distracting them enough to be browbeaten by a 3-foot water fowl and a punk rock version of Marty Mcfly’s mom. Beverly, Lea Thompson’s poorly named character, almost instantly feels sorry for the poor mallard alien and asked if he wants to come over. This leads to a series of odd happenings that added to the running time of this movie and culminate in a very awkward scene in which Beverly seduces Howard. Matt and I were turning away from the T.V. at this point as no amount of Lea Thompson nakedness could make us stomach the idea of a duck and a woman. Eventually, this is broken up by scientists who break into Beverly’s house and tell Howard they were the reason he was brought here and they can get him home. This is about at the forty-five minute mark of an hour and a half duck movie so Matt and I were confused at how a resolution to this farce could take another forty-five minutes of our lives. Sadly, it could. Here is the fast version: Howard is brought to a facility where he was pulled down by some tractor beam, but as he arrives something has gone horribly wrong and another being has been brought back, but not from the duck-verse! It turns out it is a demon from some unknown demon-verse who possess a scientist and plans to take over the earth! The cops show up! Everyone runs! Howard gets separated from Beverly and this leads to a fifteen minute scene in which Howard flies an ultralight (a very small aircraft that looks like a hang-glider)! Howard kills the demon and destroys the tractor beam now he can’t get home! Beverly and her band play a monster gig rocking the song “Howard the duck”!

So, to say this is a waste of time is an understatement. An hour in Matt was pleading me to fast forward but I claimed that for the honesty of this blog I must watch the whole movie. Matt did this several times, but I refuted his pleas. This movie was far too long. Multiple scenes were pointlessly added and the ending took thirty minutes from my life which I could have used to brush up on my duck puns. This seems on par for George Lucas, who has done his best to hide this mallardy (yeah thats right, a duck pun), and hasn’t done something relevant since Last Crusade. But, Based on the premise of this movie I can’t say I didn’t see this coming. However, when the execution on a 37 million dollar project is this bad it is a thing to watch. 37 million-1980-dollars that is insane to think about. Matt and I weren’t entirely sure who this movie was even marketed to as it was too racy for 1986 kids to see (there were duck boobs), but the premise was too stupid for anyone else to see. The score, which was written by Academy Award winning composer John Barry, seemed out of place in this tottery world of ducks and Lea Thompson. But, it did help remind me of films like Flight of the Navigator (1986) and The Explorers (1985) which contained science fiction with a starkly family feel. So, maybe it did have some sort of audience that it thought it could cater to, but they were obviously misguided in thinking this film would reach anyone as this film eventually became known as a clausal bomb.

2 out of 10: bloated, overly long, and poorly executed, though some fun can be garnered from mocking it.

Jumper (Theatre) - Both

I'm not an adventurous eater, but I have a rule, I will try anything once. This certainly doesn't mean I'll like it, but I'll try it. The same can be said about works of Science Fiction for me. Jennie and I recently got into Jericho, I watched three or four episodes of Firefly this morning, I'll even watch the occasional Star Trek and enjoy it, so I warn you I enjoy Science Fiction stuff a little more than most and will try any of it once.
With that being said Jumper is mediocre at best. Jumper is half taken from a Steven Gould book from the early nineties and half taken from the Matrix. The parts it adds seem to fit quit nicely and add a villain for the protagonist which were absent from the book. Hayden Christensen the cardboard prop from the Star Wars prequels plays David Rice a young outcast, aren't they all, who discovers an ability to teleport. At first he can't really figure out why or how this works but he eventually learns the rules to jumping and uses them to runaway from his abusive dad, aren't they all, and gain wealth. Years pass and David finds that there is a police force to protect the world against Jumpers and this causes David to go underground and return to his home. The movie's multiple cliché relationships create some drama, but lack any weight for the viewer to muster up any emotion for them. His relationship with a childhood crush is the catalyst to most of the movies forward momentum. He takes her to Rome and gives her a Jumper Date allowing him to get into places normal people couldn't. This scene takes far to long and I simply lost interest here. He gets caught, she finds some reason to hate him, he finds some reason to save her, he finds some way to escape the Jumper police, it is all very action filled, and about as much fun as it sounds.
I have to admit, I like the concept. I actually think this would have made a pretty good t.v. show, all the pieces were there, but the movie was just an abridged version of an idea and because of that it lacked any real power.

5 out of 10: mundane execution, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Invasion (Dvd) - Both

At first glance this movie is a modern Hollywood science fiction thriller. Aliens inhabit bodies; try to take over the world, things explode. And if that is what you go into this movie expecting you will be disappointed. I believe this is why this movie was panned almost universally. I came into it expecting just that and was pleasantly surprised that is was not. Yes, this does happen (and there is an explanation as to why) but not in the Will Smith July 4th blockbuster way. This movie attempts to make a very shallow message with its bodysnatching. I’m sure the original did so as well, but having not seen it I cannot vouch for its success in this area. This message, that humans are themselves a destructive force to humanity. Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman) finds that the world is being taken over by an entity that fell from space that inhabits humans like a common cold (through the blood or bodily fluids). When the humans fall asleep the alien inhabitant is given the ability to put the human into a permanent mode of R.E.M. sleep and thus control it forever, the human looks the same but acts as if they were on some pretty good medication. This method of bodysnatching gives the film a pretty good plot device that the writer exploits. Carol is given the virus pretty early in the movie, and thus has to stay awake for the remainder of the movie, lest she turns. Since the aliens can’t identify themselves she only has to act without emotion to blend in. This lends the film its most suspenseful and successful moments. Carol walks down streets with eerily vacant crowds and must remain calm. The film emits a claustrophobic feeling by just following her. Where the film falls apart is when it turns into the blockbuster it never wanted to be.
Let me give you a little history.
Around October 30, 2005 the film was finished with no green screen action and minimal visual effects by director Oliver Hirschbiegel, this version did not seem viable to the studios (interpret: needed more explosions) and thus the Wachowski brothers were enlisted to infuse it with action. After 17 days and 10 million dollars the film was finished, again.
These “infused with action” scenes are quit obvious, and slowly rip at the films message, integrity, and quality as each extra flies from each resulting explosion till we are left a Nicole-Kidman-saves-the-day moment. Sad, really. I guess studios really know what the public wants…
And this is the general quandary of this film. I believe the film did not succeed because it wasn’t a Blockbuster Alien flick, but it wasn’t a subtle suspense film either. It attempted to be both, and you cannot serve two masters. Might it have been successful without the magic touch of the Wachowski brothers, I think so.

4 out of 10: While it remains subtle, this film works, but when it strays from its origins it fails miserably.

Cloverfield (Theatre) - Both

The marketing for this film was, in my opinion, sheer genius. If you watched Transformers this summer you were treated to a preview that portrayed a going away party. This party seemed pretty normal till all hell broke loose and screaming, running, and general mayhem took over. The last shot saw the head of the statue of liberty fly by and land in the street, ripped from its body. The last sound was someone yelling, "I saw it, it's alive, it's huge!" Then no name, no nothing, just 1-18-08 (the release date).
Now, most people have come to know that this is a monster movie. Simple. Monster comes - attacks city - people panic, but Cloverfield has its niche. Not only does it succeed as a solid monster film, it also adds a chaotic first person view. This allows Cloverfield to succeed beyond the other alumni. The sometimes nausea inducing camera work plays to the fear accompanying the characters as they make there way through the hoops the writers make them transverse. The drawback of this device is that there always had to be a reason someone was taping everything, which in a run for your life situation, seems pretty ludicrous. The writers didn’t necessarily succeed in coming up with reasons for this, but I can forgive them this in most instances.
I have seen Cloverfield likened to The Blair Witch Project (July 1999) which I can see, but I believe that is a shallow reference. Yes, the first person view lends itself to the reference, but that is about it. Ultimately this reference simply states that this is the only other movie to have used this device so successfully. However, I would liken it to The Host (July 2006) a South Korean monster movie that, if you watch, seems to be Cloverfield's long-lost brother. I can picture J.J. Abrams sitting with his buddies watching it and saying, “We should totally make a monster flick!” The similarities are many, but the most glaring would have to be its devotion not to the monster, but to the characters. Abram’s film focused on the humans in the situation and not the monster. The monster was an afterthought, a catalyst, but defiantly not the focus. This is why both of these movies succeed and movies like Godzilla (1998 film) fail so miserably. This is not to say the writers did this that well, the dialog was vapid, the characters were thin, and their motivations were confusing, but it is always interesting to see humans react, even unsuccessfully, to sheer terror.
Spoiler Alert:
The way this movie ranks so high to me though, is that it does the one thing you expect to happen when and if a monster were to attack an island. Everyone dies. I love that. It makes everything seem that much more realistic (I know, I know). But, they die too late. The movie would have been a complete success if the Manhattan scenes ended about five minutes earlier than they did: when the helicopter crashes. End it. *Crackle* It’s still alive *Crackle* then Coney Island scene. But no, they had to have a soliloquy by the last two characters before they die. Ho Hum. The second ending, the Coney Island scene was great. And did you see the monster’s origin in that scene? Or did you miss it?

8 out of 10: Succeeded on all levels that it wanted to, at times the melodrama was too much.

Transformers Trailer:

Sunshine (Dvd) - Ashleigh

Fantastic Sci-Fi thriller. I enjoyed the visuals thoroughly. They made the vastness of space a character to be reckoned with. The first half of the movie was a psychological bender that could hold its own against any previous sci-fi-emptyness-of-space-gets-us-frightened-of-our-own-shadow movie, but it does nothing new from these movies. I'm not entirely sure it ever does anything new, which isn't a bad thing, but it does stumble a bit at the end. As the movie jogs to its climactic tipping point it turns into a Michael Bay fight to save humanity against a blurry melting villain. There were so many directions you could have gone to have avoided this poor ending, but alas this is not the case. Boyle again chooses a score that compliments his style and the film's mood. Overall, another fantastic film in Danny Boyle's arsenal, making me think this man can do no wrong.

7 out of 10: Sci-Fi at its peak, but missing a satisfying ending