1408

When we think of horror movies, we tend to think of monsters, ghouls and rogue spirits hunting down innocent victims while a cheesy soundtrack plays.  Rarely do we watch movies about truly evil, completely inanimate beings being the main cause for alarm.  Yes, that scary movie may take place in a haunted house, but it's the crazed spirits of human-like ghosts and demons who haunt our protagonists, not the actual house itself.  Yes, dolls like Chucky and Anabelle are horrendously creepy, but even they move and have human-like qualities.  That's where 1408 separates itself from other films in this genre.  This film is not about an evil, human-like spirit.  It is not merely about a doll with some character.  Instead, 1408 is about an evil room, and therein lies its genius.  Our feeble human minds cannot grapple with this monster - one with no face, one who toys with our emotions and aspirations like it does to protagonist Mike Enslin (John Cusack).  As like many adaptions of Stephen King's greatest works, this film not only creates new avenues for humans to see new forms of horror but also innovative ways to experience this newly discovered horror as well.

The film's exposition and introduction can be summed up rather quickly.  Mike Enslin is a horror writer, and catches wind of a mysterious haunted room in which every resident has apparently committed suicide.  He manages to coax the hotel's manager, Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), into letting him use the room for the night.  Although Olin very reluctantly agrees, he still leaves Enslin with a very stern word of warning - that Enslin cannot grasp the terrors that the room will instill in him.  Enslin just shrugs these menacing words off.  How can a room be evil?

What follows this basic plot is nothing short of psychological horror genius.  This film is much less about throwing spooky screamers in our faces than it is about showcasing the fragility of the human mind.  Enslin finds himself in a room where he can't escape, which at one point seems to go on for infinity.  He is mocked by a sadistic phone line, who offers him an "express check out" of dubious merit.  His emotional baggage, which was well-hidden at the start of the film, starts to unpack as his mind starts to crack.  As the film progresses, it becomes obvious how 1408 is great at driving the audiences' expectations.  Scenes don't just happen, they unwind.  Any trace of sanity or logic is removed not immediately, but slowly and surely.  Suddenly, the image that we're being shown seems... off.  From there, the cracks begin to appear, and, soon, all hell breaks lose.  Ultimately, however, 1408 is asking the question: How would we, as humans, act in Enslin's situation?  Could we escape and inescapable room that was continuously devouring on our sanity?  If one ponders on these questions for any length of time, the film begins to get exponentially more terrifying.

In review, I find 1408  to be one of the best psychological thrillers/horror flicks of the past twenty years.  Yes, its exposition and character are a bit lacking, but it makes up for it with beautifully done surrealism, terror and creepiness.  It throws its audience into an unbelievable situation that would cause anyone to shudder at its dark and horrifying overtones.

4.5 out of 5 stars.

Snowpiercer

by Andrew Diemer

As humankind struggles to reverse the harmful effects of global warming, the theories to stop it grow even more desperate. The scientific plan to disperse a chemical to cool the planet and prevent it from overheating succeeds, and then subsequently freezes the planet instead killing nearly everyone on Earth. Earth’s only survivors can be found endlessly riding the immortal train created by a billionaire prior to the frozen apocalypse. The people of the train are divided by class and those classes are separated by cars; the back of the train being crowded and housing the dreary, dirty, and diseased and far removed from the front where the trains privileged enjoy extreme luxuries.

            17 years and 17 trips around Earth later the tension of those shoved and forcibly kept in the back of the train cannot hold any longer, which is understandable considering their daily meals only consist of a few blocks of ground bugs for each person and they are held in their cramped quarters by armed guards. Not to mention the guards occasionally haul off children in what would seem to be some sort of sacrificial ceremony every so often. Curtis (Chris Evans) is the relatable likeable but reluctant leader of this push to the front. With him is the old broken down man Gilliam who’s wisdom and experience of these uprisings (this not being the first attempt to get to the front of the train) guide Curtis as he begins his push. Together they’re able to create a plan that will take everyone from the back of the train to the front.

            As Curtis travels farther up the train we learn more about his life and his confinement in the back of the train. Through flashbacks and some of his own narrative, we see some of the horrors of the back of the train where cannibalism was not an uncommon practice and we also learn more than perhaps we ever wanted to know about Curtis’s own life. We learn about the ominous Wilson as well, the creator of the train and faceless overlord. Our only information of him comes by way of the first classers as they refer to him in almost a godlike manner. There are chants and songs dedicated to him, and what seem like sacrifices as well. But almost the entire film we are never given a face to match his name, or a voice either as every time someone calls to the engine to talk to him they do not receive an answer. These are among some of the mysteries and evolutions of characters that kept me interested throughout the entire movie.

            But this movie does not just reward its watchers with interesting characters and intriguing storytelling. Perhaps what was even better were the amazing visuals and shots in the film. First person night vision action scenes, overviews of famous cities frozen over, and views winding through incredibly designed first class cars, which can vary from aquarium, to underground rave, to schoolhouse are just some of the shots featured here.

            While Snowpiercer is an eventful, mysterious and suspenseful, the film does raise some questions while watching such as why the train needs to circle the earth in the first place or even more pressing how it circles the earth (because did they wait for the oceans to freeze over and then build tracks on them?). I found myself asking why there needed to be so many people in the back to begin with, and as the film goes on questions about the push to the front itself. Although there are slight holes in the plot of Snowpiercer, none of them really take away from my enjoyment of the film. It’s absolutely worth the watch.

3 out of 5

Die Hard 2

It's Christmas Eve at a busy airport.  Terrorists have taken over the control room and you have limited options to solve this crisis other than listening to their demands.  Corrupt army officers abound, and there are few people who you can trust.  So who do you call?  Well, the one-and-only Bruce Willis - er, John McClane.  More specifically, John McClane is the one who calls you.  Thus is the premise of the second installment of the popular Die Hard series.  Die Hard 2 is one of those very few movies which has a very serious and heavy plot that is balanced out by just a sheer amount of fun and cinematic pleasure.  While the film does have some flaws, it is, on the whole, quite the enjoyable ride, filled to the brim with outrageous situations and action-packed scenes.

As with most films of the franchise, Die Hard 2 does not rely too heavily on plot or an entirely sensible story.  Instead, the plot mostly serves as a means for all of the action to even exist.  The bad guys are ruthless, technically-advanced terrorists with absolutely no regard for human life.  Every other authority/government figure (besides Officer McClane, of course) is either corrupt or unhelpful.  It is up to Officer McClane to save the day once again, yadda yadda yadda.  Yeah, the plot is certainly not anything stellar, to be sure.  On the other hand, the film's story is well-thought out and not bad or stupid enough to destroy one's suspension of disbelief.  It serves its role rather well in this sense -  after all, Die Hard didn't break ground for its story-telling.  Indeed, the series is mostly notable for its gratuitous violence and swearing.  Speaking of...

The action sequences in this flick are nothing short of top-notch.  The are intense gunfights, brawls, chase scenes, etc, all of which are done incredibly well (special shout-out to the brawl that occurs in the luggage conveyor belts near the beginning of the film).   There is blood... and bodies... and guns... and they all help to  convey the intensity of the scene at hand. In fat, at one point, McClane manages to find himself stuck in a plane with the enemy terrorists surrounding him.  When a live grenade gets tossed into the plane by chief baddie Colonel Stuart (William Sadler), Officer John dupes his foes by using the ejector seat in the plane's cockpit.  It is this scene which helps to drive home the main division within the film - the plot is quite serious and emotionally charged, while the action is quite gratuitous and over-the-top.  This is also seen earlier in the film, in which the terrorists manage to crash a commercial jet, killing all 200+ passengers.  This scene is so powerful, upsetting and harrowing that it can really touch a viewer in their spiritual core.  And then you get Willis making faces like this not even 20 minutes later:

Overall, Die Hard 2  is a damn fine, action-packed flick that knows exactly what it is and runs with that information all the way through.  While the plot isn't perfect, it is solid and does its job well, and really allows for the stellar action sequences to be allowed.

4 out of 5 stars.

The Avengers: Age of Ultron

You want action?  GO CHECK THIS MOVIE OUT!  I went last night with a buddy of mine to watch the new Avengers movie, and we both left the theater feeling like little kids with toy guns.  This movie contains continuous action scenes that every comic book buff is looking for, and the plot incorporates issues- like how artificial intelligence is changing human intelligence, and where technology is steering humanity- that irritate individuals in our world today.

The Positives:  IT HAS ACTION! Digital effects were used seemingly every scene, with no hesitation, in this big budget blockbuster.  I enjoyed them.  What would you expect if: a giant green gorilla like creature, an ageless army captain with impenetrable shield, an alien god, and a man made of iron decide to battle a robot with super strength, and intelligence, that it's mind and bodies are constantly growing and rebuilding?

I also appreciated the director, Joss Whedon, for touching on the topic of artificial intelligence.  I was fascinated when the Ultron, an intelligent robot with a growing mind, kept repeating a phrase from a song that talked about being set free from strings.  It made me think about how humanity interacts with technology, how we are like puppeteers moving strings.  What if technology figures a way to remove itself from our control?

The Negatives:  Im going to be honest, I really thought this was a great movie, so instead of writing down negatives, which are few, I'm going to mention some more positives.  I found myself laughing out loud in the movie theater a couple of times.  The comedy scenes were a relief from the tedious amount of action.  The characters were just as entertaining and funny as in the first Avengers.  The best parts being when they made fun of each other.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie.  I think that if you have ten dollars to spend on a movie it should defiantly be this one.  It will keep you wanting more action, and laughing constantly, until the final credits.  Even then wait an extra minute.  There is a clip that leads one to assume there will be another Avengers movie.


5 out of 5

This Is the End

This is the End  is simply an awesome black comedy/disaster flick that crosses the line twice and then some ("the line" meaning the audience's acceptance of what's funny against what they find offensive).  Its ensemble cast stars Seth Rogen (who also directed and and produced the film), James Franco, Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, Danny McBride and Craig Robinson, all playing fictionalized versions of themselves in the aftermath of a global apocalypse of Biblical proportions.

When I say this film is a black comedy, it is a black comedy - one that draws its humor by exploiting taboo subjects .  This film tackles such subjects as cannibalism, masturbation, death, demon possession and hilariously over-the-top violence to full effect, almost shocking the viewer with its unabashed comedy.  One of the best scenes in the flick includes (a rather unpleasant) Jonah Hill being possessed of a by a (rather awful) demon (Hint: the sequence includes projectile vomit, numerous The Exorcist references and a man on fire).  Somehow, Jonah's pleasant demeanor and naturally awkward movements are twisted and convoluted by the demon, with the end result of him smashing his way about James Franco's mansion being strangely hilarious. That said, this film is definitely not for everyone, especially those squeamish or easily offended.  However, if you believe that you can stomach the horrors of Armageddon, one would find this movie to be one of the funniest films in years.

The plot is surprisingly interesting and, in all honesty, rather horrifying.  The sheer idea of the end of the world is scary enough, but the effect, at least on this reviewer, was rather humbling.  Our preconceived perceptions of normality are destroyed 20 minutes into the movie, and it is this nervous energy instilled in the viewer that helps perpetuate the film's comedic edge.  After a rather normal comedic intro (Baruchel and Rogen meet up, smoke weed, get Carlos Jr., and head to Franco's party), their trip to a convenience store during the party goes horribly awry when the store's other customers get sucked up into the sky by a blue light and the cashier is smashed by a falling air duct.  The sheer image of a Los Angeles quickly descending into literal Hell is actually quite shocking.  Fires break out, streetlights have a mind of their own, sinkholes appear out of nowhere and demons begin to appear out of the darkness.  When the pair somehow make it back to Franco's, there is a breath of normality, which is quickly destroyed by the ensuing scene where some of Hollywood's favorites are killed off in unsettling and gruesome ways.  The idea that not even our celebrities are safe easily destroys the audience's comfort level, and actually creates a fair bit of internal drama - the viewer realizes that no one, not Franco, not Rogen, is safe in this movie.  Without giving up any spoilers, it is this idea and how it is dealt with which drives the humor of this flick.  

In the end, This is the End is a movie that speaks much better for itself than I ever could.  It is a solid flick that contorts our normal conventions of buddy/ensemble movies in a way both groundbreaking and, sometimes, disturbing.  For being billed as a comedy, it surprisingly has clear influences from horror, and even tackles the Lovecraftian subgenre (in which the protagonists of the plot deal with unimaginable almighty beings/ events that are completely out of their control).  Despite the horror influence, I believe This is the End to be one of the funniest movies I have ever seen.  Yes, it's distasteful; yes, I believe I may have scarred my parents for life when they watched it with me; but, gosh darn, what a fantastic dark comedy.

4.5 out of 5 stars.

The Wedding Ringer

Looking for a good comedy to watch this weekend?  Go check out The Wedding Ringer, a silly comedy flick, starring Kevin Hart and Josh Gad.  I have seen a couple of Kevin Hart's other movies and became a fan of his big screen comedies.  Kevin Hart made himself famous through his successful stand up comedy performances.  However, his recent movies show that he is a multi-talented entertainer.

In The Wedding Ringer Hart plays the character of Jimmy Callahan- a smooth talking entrepreneur with a best man wedding service business.  Callahan is the best at his job because his business is one of a kind and, in the movie, there is a demand for a best man in the United States.  I thought this was a clever route to take because of the avenues that it offers for a comedy flick.  Josh Gad plays the character of Doug, an introvert who is about to get married to a beautiful woman named Gretchen and, with two weeks until their grand wedding Doug could not come up with a best man and six groomsman.  This is where Jimmy enters.

I have to say that it is nice to see a comedy that incorporates the groom's point of view throughout the majority of the movie.  Many recent wedding comedies are about the bride, like "My Best-friends Wedding" or "Bride Wars".  There have been movies about the parents, like "Father of the Bride" or "Mother of the Bride", and there have also been movies about the entourage of either gender, such as, "The Hangover" or "Bridesmaid".  What makes The Wedding Ringer unique is that it is told from the perspective of the groom.

Hart and Gad have a great connection on screen which help create hilarious scenes throughout the movie.  Hart's character, Jimmy, has to remember all the tall tales that Doug told Gretchen about his imaginary best friend Bic.  This is where I spent the majority of the time laughing.  Doug tells Gretchen that Bic (Hart) was a priest who was in the military, which is the only thing that Gretchen believes because she has never been introduced to her fiance's best friend.

The other groomsman Doug hires are a rowdy random bunch of strange men.  They have their times when their jokes hit and miss.  Easily recognizable among them was Jorge Garcia, from the ABC tv series "Lost".  The last scene of the movie was probably the best because it references Garcia's famous role in "Lost".  Another character that was easily recognizable was Aveon Crocket, a former comedian on the MTV show "Wild n Out".  I was expecting more from Crocket, but then again in this movie he was just a supporting actor.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie.  Kevin Hart is continuing his success on the big screen by making another movie with raunchy, shallow humor.  Somehow it still manages to come across with some insightful ideas on male friendship.  Hart and Gad shine in their first ever movie together.  Go watch!

3 1/2 out of 5 stars

Billy Madison

            Adam Sandler, perhaps the most offensive and untalented actor in American Cinema that somehow still manages to feature himself in more and more movie. Even just this past week, while on set making his first, of what unfortunately could be more, Netflix movie, eight Native American actors working with him on that movie walked off set out of anger for the scripts intentional and unquestionable offensiveness towards women, Native Americans, and their elders.

            But this is now; this is where Adam Sandler has arrived in his esteemed and masterful career. It wasn’t always this way. Sandler picked up with movies like Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison before capturing his true unprofessional and insensitive self in, what I hesitantly call movies, like You Don’t Mess with the Zohan and I Know Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.

            But I hadn’t seen Billy Madison so I thought I would give the old Adam Sandler another try. And I wish I hadn’t. Sandler’s character is the immature and insensitive son of his hard working, built from the ground up, millionaire father who, and these words actually come out of his own fathers mouth, “paid your toys, cars, vacations, clothes… you graduated because I paid your teachers to give you decent grades”. Prior to his return to school, his daily routine consisted of; making sure he had had five daiquiris, checking for nudie magazines, finding dog poop to put in bags and then burn on the porch of old men’s doors, and rampaging through his own lawns and gardens with a golf cart while the groundskeepers are diligently working on them, presumably trying to repair the devastation Billy has already caused. Not only that, but he nearly hits more than a few of those same groundskeepers drunk driving that same golf cart, which is very illegal by the way. Not to mention he also can be seen regularly chasing a giant penguin through the grounds as well, leading me to believe alcohol was not the only thing in his system.

            And after learning all this… Billy is the good guy? Our bad guy is the intelligent, big haired, and probably worked his whole life for this Eric Gordon who advises Briar Madison (Billy’s father) not to let his son take over the family business and he is cast as the bad guy. Although Eric is later driven insane, which I think is understandable for even having to compete against a man who still has yet to put in any reasonable effort. The entire movie I wondering to myself, “why should I be rooting for this guy?” This is not a hero I idolize, nor is this character deserving of any sort of redemption whatsoever, let alone run a fortune 500 company. Not to mention after a lifetime of being a terrible person all he has to do to make up for everything is kind of sort of but not really go back to school. And by that I mean spend two weeks in each grade.

            Billy shouldn’t of even had the chance to run his father’s company, and I don’t think you should give this movie a chance either. It would seem Happy Gilmore is just the lucky coincidence of a semi quality movie standing out from an otherwise undeservedly famous career.

1 out of 5

Django Unchained

When one thinks of a Western, they usually conjure up images of the American Southwest, with landscapes of grand canyons, gargantuan stone monuments or widespread desert.  However, Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained is also a Western... that mostly takes place in the American Southeast.  Despite this change of scene, Django incorporates several Western tropes and conventions to their fullest potential.  Ultimately, Django is a great movie with inspired action sequences, humorous asides, surprisingly deep meditations and comments on race in America, and perfectly tuned characters who develop as the film goes on, especially Django.

Django starts off rather morbidly, as we find our hero Django (Jamie Foxx) chained up with his fellow slaves and being forced to walk along a trail by a couple of rather awful slave drivers.  After a couple of scenes involving the horrors of such a walk, the audience is introduced to Dr. King Shultz (Christopher Waltz), an ex-dentist and, unbeknownst to the audience, current bounty hunter.  Shultz interrogates Django and believes that he is the one who could be helpful for his next assignment, but is threatened by the barrel of  a shotgun when the drivers realize what Shultz's real profession is.  Shultz immediately shoots them both, killing one and severely crippling the other, and frees Django.
This scene is quite dark yet also quite fun, setting up the film's tone for the rest of the running time.

The film then goes on to its main story, as Django and Schultz team up to take a pair of Django's old slave-owners/nemesis's.  After killing them in style (Django's blue attire may go down as one of the strangest outfits in cinematic history), the two decided to find Django's wife and find a means of freeing her.  Cut to a hilarious piece of dark-comedy on the origin of a certain robe-wearing, white-supremacist group followed by training montage in the surprisingly beautiful Wyoming wilderness.  After these wonderful scenes, Schultz and Django set off to tackle their most difficult challange: freeing Broomhilda Von Shaft (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of a cold-hearted yet memorable villian - Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) - and his truly villainous house-negro, Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson).

(Django meets Calvin Candie, who is the owner of his wife.)

Without giving too much away, Django is a bloody, explosive and hilarious exploration into the Western genre with a Southern setting.  Yet despite the setting Django is a Western through and through.  We are given a protagonist who is a great shot with an even greater sense of style.  There are stand-offs and shoot-outs, wanted criminals and outlaws, bounty-hunters and a damsel in distress.  The roles are almost all perfectly cast, with DiCaprio's surprisingly villainous exploits and Samuel L.'s incredibly formidable character being just two examples.  This  especially applies to the main characters, as Foxx and Waltz seem to both have an inherent understanding of who they are portraying, and simply do an excellent job.   The Tarantino-effect is in full control here, as well - not only is there gratuitous violence, but gratuitous violence that is enjoyable, well-executed and just plain fun.  While the film does have quite a long running time coming in at just under three hours, I would highly recommend this film for its explorations of humor, action, violence, race relations, trope subversions, plot, wonderfully crafted character and, ultimately, just being a bloody good time.  All in all, not just a great Tarantino movie, but perhaps one of the best of the decade thus far.

True Grit (Original)

Hello, movie lovers! Some of you may have read Andrew's recent post on the remake of a western classic, True Grit.  Also, Hopefully, some of you have had a chance to check out the remake because it's definitely worth a watch.  After I read Andrews post I decided to do a review on the original True Grit, starring John Wayne.  Let me just tell you in advanced that the original is just as good, if not better, than the remake.

True Grit, is the first movie I've seen starring John Wayne.  Honestly, I didn't even know what he looked like until, I searched his name on google, two minutes into the movie.  The plot of the story revolves around a young woman, Mattie Ross (Kim Darby), who is trying to find the man, Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey), that murders her father, and bring him back home so they can hang him.  For her first move she hires U.S Marshal Reuben "Rooster"J. Cogburn (John Wayne), referred to by many as a man with "true grit", to find and bring in Chaney.  Mattie and Rooster then later team up with a Texas Ranger named La Boeuf (Glen Campbell), who is also searching for Cheney, to help capture him.

I found Wayne's acting to be very intriguing.  Rooster is a one eyed, unwashed, fat old man whose dynamic persona is a mix between a man who is a ruthless alcoholic, and a man with good intentions. Somehow he blends this mixture into a character that appealed to me.  I also enjoyed how all of the actors in the original have an exaggerated and animated way of acting, especially Kim Darby's character.  This movie came towards the tail end of wayne acting career and showed he could still make a good movie late in his life.  He played the role of the hero again in the film, which is only appropriate.

Mattie Ross is a smart, funny, and determined young woman who drives the whole movie.  Her animated acting and pesky presence allows her to find a route around many of the problems she faces throughout the movie.  She strikes a deal with a horse owner to get a horse for the journey by outtalking him.  She is also the only character in the movie that Rooster seems to really care for.  I thought Darby was funny in most of her scenes.  She talked with energy and action, which is why her character draws much attention throughout the movie.

Campbell, the Texas Ranger, is probably the weakest actor of the three.  His role in the plot is necessary but the acting was a bit too much- over exaggerating his acting in every one of his scenes.  Also, throughout the movie there are these comic jabs thrown at the texan from Rooster and Mattie, which made me wonder why they hated the texan so much?

Director Henry Hathaway uses great camera in this movie.  He moves from these close shots of the actors, to widescreen shots capturing the environment.  However, there was one scene when Mattie and Rooster were camping that looked completely "Hollywood".  It looked like the background was a black cloth, and you could see the fire because the camera was in a close shot of the character's faces.    

I have to say that I was not disappointed watching True Grit, in fact I liked it enough to check out a couple of more of Wayne's films.   If you have never seen the original True grit, but have seen the new one, you should still check it out because the acting of both Wayne, and Darby will keep you entertained throughout.

4 out of 5 stars

True Grit

           

I’m often skeptical of Western Movies. I didn’t grow up with the manly man gentlemanly but still lone wolf don’t need no help gotta do whats right Clint Eastwood John Wayne people. I don’t feel the same nostalgia that my father and uncles seem to salivate over when they reminisce about John Wayne kicking ass and riding off, or when Clint whips out a really unnecessary and absolutely not standard issue weapons and proceeds to write his own laws in bullet holes. True Grit (2010) is my kind of Western, the good kind of Western.

           

            In short Mattie Ross (Hailee Stienfeld) is the young, but doesn’t act like it, tough and fiery girl that looks to hire an old, in every sense of the word, US Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track down and kill her father’s murderer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). And all of them play unique and authentic characters that grant weight and emotion to the film. Jeff Bridges is not a glorified Old West cowboy with that elegant sauve and Jame Bond swagger. He sports and old, dirty, patch beard and above it a worn out eye patch and you can tell just how he smells from the clothes he’s wearing. The one eyed former marshal is a stubborn drunk. Jeff Bridge’s character drags around like any man would if his life consisted of riding miles on horseback just to shoot some people, to get shot back at, to never have a real place that is home, to only own one set of clothes. It’s the real western enforcer, not the prettied super cowboy.  

            That dusty dirty drunken Cogburn is up against the straight, “just to watch it burn” kind of evil that I always compare to the Joker from Batman. The no respect, no loyalty, sometimes no motive, unadulterated evil that exits simply because it can. Josh Brolin’s character only earns any props from me just for how well he plays the role. And there is also Matt Damon’s character, LaBoeuf, the Texas Ranger after Chaney for other reasons but who teams up with Cogburn although not to either of their likings. The two battle each other on the road as we learn of the history of these two gunslingers animosity for each other.

            This story of the old souled and unshakable young girl alongside two unlikely and unfriendly heroes to take down a truly devilish man is a must watch. It’s a story of revenge, wit, growing and of course, grit.

4 out of 5

K-Pax

            Ridding on the Kevin Spacey hype train I came upon his 2001 film K-Pax where he stars as Prot who is either Manhattan’s most convincing psychiatric patient or an alien investigator. Spacey’s costar is Jeff Bridges, Dr.  tasked with evaluating and treating the man who claims to have ridden light to see Earth.

The relationship between Pax and Dr. Powell, Bridge’s character, quickly becomes a noticeably unique situation. Powell is a master of his work. He has the respect of his colleagues, he essentially runs the facility, and he seems unfazed by all his other cases and they don’t require much effort on his part. He’s seen it all before. And then there is Prot. Powell’s interviews begin with him and he throws drugs at it and expects the same result he usually gets. But Prots body is immune to these drugs. Powell becomes interested. He follows up with more interviews but Prot continually displays incredible intelligence. Powell brings Prot in front of a team of scientists exploring and working to try to explain the workings of the universe and Prot is able to give calculations and formulas explaining details about his “home” planet that these scientists had had yet to figure out themselves. Powell becomes emotionally invested.

He cares for Prot, and he is determined to help him but his effort to solve the mystery behind Prot is not just a selfless one. Powell is driven to find an earthly answer to maintain his own sanity as well. Powell’s struggle to find the answer is the audience’s struggle as well and it’s an intriguing one. Prot has befriended the audience as well. He is the hero that brightens the ward, giving the patients new energy and hope. He is friendly, intelligent, and genuine who’s entire impact is positive. The film has few points where my eyes aren’t glued to the screen, watching everything, hoping to find another hint that will take me closer to knowing for sure where Prot is from.

My only real issue is a small one. The man who has seen everything, and who looks to be as about experienced as it gets when it comes to his field breaks his toughest case yet by using hypnosis. The only time I felt the movie wasn’t drawing me in closer when the introduction of hypnosis. Here we have this big time physiatrist and an impossible client and the doctor’s ace in the hole is waving a watch and talking calmly. I think the movie and Prot deserved a more well thought out answer than that.

But my concerns were buried by the ending I wanted. With still no answer by the end of the movie, it invites speculation and imagination. After the confusion of weighing all the evidence were left remembering the impact that Prot had. The way it should have ended.

3 out of 5

RoboCop Review

Yesterday I scrolled through the Netflix database for a new movie to watch.  I was in the mood for a sci-fi film with plenty of action. After a 4 minute search, I chose to watch RoboCop. Having already seen the original RoboCop, that was released in 1987, I thought it would be interesting to see how director Jose Padiha would reinvent this hero.

I'll start off by naming some of the positives I noticed in Padiha's film.  The first thing that stuck out to me was the societal questions the film posed. Questions such as; Is technology taking away human expression? Can robots combat crime more effectively than humans, without any biases?  Can humans and robots co-exist?  These questions are important to think about, not only because it makes the movie interesting, but also because of the pace that our society is evolving.  Pretty soon robots might be patrolling our streets.

In the movie, Padiha robots are created by a money hungry corporation, OmniCorp, that wants to start using robots as police officers.  OmniCorp has a tough time convincing the public that this would be a good idea, in part because of situations where the human element might need to be activated.  As we all know, robots can't activate this element.  OmniCorp president (Michael Keaton) comes up with an idea of combining a man and a robot to appeal to the public.  The human always being in control of any life or death decision.  OmniCorp starts looking for disabled officers that would qualify for their test of a RoboCop.  They find Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnamen), a detective who almost died in an attempted murder car explosion.  Murphy lost most of his limbs and was in critical condition when he was submitted to the hospital.  OmniCorp president Raymond Sellars introduced the idea to Murphy's wife, offering her to sign a consent form, in order to save Murphey.  She signs.  One of the most powerful scenes in the movie is when Murphy is dismembered of his robot limbs, in order to face the reality that he is just a head, with a brain, and a torso, with a heart.  This image  paints, and asks, the question if humans and robots can co-exist, and if so who is in control?

Padiha does an awesome job creating the action scenes in the movie.  The RoboCop suit looks ways better than in the original 1987 movie.  It is a sleek black, almost batman like, suit that reacts just like normal body reacts to.  What makes the suit special is the data, and information that it can hold.  Murphy can search through his database to target certain individuals who are violating the law.  Also, since the suit is controlled by a human it makes the decision making a little slower than the other robots that OmniCorp creates.  I think the action scenes in this movie kept me engaged.  The acting on the other hand did not.

Now the negatives.  As a big fan of Samual Jackson I found his role in this movie to be annoying.  Jackson plays a news channel host who is in favor of having robots as police officers.  I found him to be just as annoying as real news anchors like Wolf Blitzer, and Nancy Grace.  The acting was more comical than dramatic when Jackson stood in front of the character.  This didn't work for the movie, to me.  Also, Michael Keaton had the same problem.  Their acting was unbelievable, and I don't mean that as a compliment.  His role as the villain in the movie is to cliche.  There is nothing fresh, and new about his role in the movie.   Besides these two characters, I think the rest of the cast does a good job in portraying their role.

Overall, I enjoyed RoboCop.  It is worth watching simply for the questions that it raises on how we interact with technology.  Also, because the future that Padiha creates is not too far away.  If you enjoy future Sci-Fi films with action, that challenge your thinking in where our society is heading, then this movie is a good watch.

 3 out of 5 stars   RoboCop Trailer

Welcome to Our Blog!

Hello!

And welcome to our blog, Explorations of Genre on the Big Screen.  Join us each week as Serxhio, Patrick and Andrew discuss movies both good and bad from each major genre as we closely examine what exactly makes these films either such a hit or a miss.

Tentative Schedule:
Week 1 - Science Fiction
Week 2 - Western
Week 3 - Comedy
Week 4 - Action
Week 5 - Horror

Who are we?

Right now we are all just students at Saint Louis University studying under the English-Education major.  That said, we are also all film-lovers.  After all, who doesn't love a good movie?