Room 237

This is a documentary about bizarre interpretations and conspiracy theories surrounding Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining."  It's crazy.  It's hypnotic.

The movie is interesting not only in its subject and the interviewees but in the way it is assembled.  The various interviews are delivered solely as voice over narration.  All the visuals are relevant footage from "The Shining" or clips of other films edited in clever ways to create bizarre, cinematic reenactments of mundane, real-world events.  It works incredibly well to immerse you in the world of cinema.

The weird theories as to the true meaning of "The Shining" are the real draw though.  Some of the ideas being thrown around seem borderline plausible.  But that's part of the fun.  All the people involved are insane.  Somehow, they just happened to latch onto this one film.  Their delusions become more and more apparent as they explain (usually in a disjointed ramble) the hidden truths in the movie.  The filmmakers play the scenes in question while the person discusses it and any sane audience member will see that they are seeing things that are not there. 

It is intensely fun to be immersed in such unbridled insanity.  The interviewees are at their best when they have a kernel of reality to hinge their theories on.  They are the folks who practically preach their message.  They speak with the conviction of a 9/11 "truther" but without being offensively moronic.  I spent a lot of this film laughing and yelling, "What are you talking about?"  These people see something so strongly that I began to feel a little crazy for not being able to see it too.  "Room 237" takes you down the rabbit hole for 100 minutes and returns you safely to reality.

I loved every second of this lunacy.  I'll be revisiting it at some point, probably after watching "The Shining" again.  I'd hate for director Rodney Ascher to be type-cast, but I'd love to see more wacky interpretations of classic movies. 

8 out of 10

Iron Man 3

This is it.  "Iron Man 3" was the my favorite summer movie this year.  As far as summer fare goes, 2013 was not very good.  A bad summer for movies is sad, but this one was made sadder by the realization that my summer peaked in early May. 

"Iron Man 3" is the first post-Avengers, Marvel movie.  And it not only lives up to the level of awesomeness that "The Avengers" set, but also helps heal the wounds left by "Iron Man 2."

In this installment, Tony Stark is up against a terrorist-mastermind known as the Mandarin.  Stark's arrogance results in the Mandarin attacking his home, leaving him presumed dead and armed with a broken suit of armor.  Stark winds up in a small town where he must learn a little humility, repair his armor, find a way to defeat the Mandarin, and overcome his PTSD.

A lot of the magic in this movie is due to writer/director Shane Black.  Black is an important voice in action cinema.  He's only been in the director chair twice but it's his screenplays that are held in such high regard.  Black burst onto the scene with "Lethal Weapon" and also had "The Monster Squad" that year (everyone's kids should be watching "The Monster Squad").  He then wrote the occasional action script every few years like "The Last Boy Scout" (which is awesome), "Last Action Hero" (which is not awesome), and "The Long Kiss Goodnight" (which is mostly awesome).  Then came a 9 year drought.  But it was all worth it, because when Shane Black returned he had his best screenplay in hand.  And he was going to direct it himself.  The result was "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang."  If you've never seen it, stop reading this and go find a copy.  This article will still be here when you get back.......all done?  Good.  It was hilarious, right?  Well, "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" is the reason that Shane Black got to write and direct "Iron Man 3."  His constant banter is a perfect match for Robert Downey Jr.

"Iron Man 3" is quintessential Shane Black.  It takes place at Christmas.  The dialogue is almost too clever.  It involves kidnapping.  It even becomes a "buddy cop" type movie at the end.  It's a big, dumb blockbuster with a big, smart script.  Sure, there are the plot holes and gaps in logic that seem to be inescapable with superhero movies, but Black has the good sense to focus on character instead of story.  Having a few gripping and fun action set pieces helps too. 

That focus on character is important because it's what makes the first movie so great.  Tony Stark, Pepper Potts, Happy Hogan, and James Rhodes are people we like and want to spend time with.  These characters were treated as little more than action figures in "Iron Man 2."

Shane Black doesn't seem to have a distinct directorial style so I can't get into that, but I will discuss the action scenes.  The two standouts being Iron Man rescuing a dozen people who've been sucked out of a damaged airplane and Tony Stark's one man raid on the Mandarin's compound.  These are great scenes that showcase Stark's ingenuity both in and out of the Iron Man suit.  The final action sequence is dumb though.  It's not poorly done.  It's just another "epic" battle to top off a movie and it feels hugely out of place in a film that is focused on a lost hero battling insomnia and panic attacks.

All in all, "Iron Man 3" is my favorite of the series.  I think the first movie is the best made, but there's something about the familiar rhythms of a Shane Black screenplay that I can't get enough of.  It's a great film and Ben Kingsley is wonderful as the Mandarin and I've really enjoyed talking to people about their reactions to him.  This is a movie that will be getting plenty of replay at my house.

8 out of 10

The Bling Ring

Ever since "The Virgin Suicides," I've been a big fan of Sofia Coppola.  The world of cinema is filled with incredible auteurs and even some gifted journeyman directors.  It is strange, however, that so many of these people are men.  In fact, the vast majority of film directors have been male.  Women as the creative force behind the camera are woefully underrepresented.  I won't get into why that is.  It's a subject that has been tackled by far greater writers and thinkers than I, and yet no answer seems to completely explain the phenomenon.  Despite making critically acclaimed films, female directors seem to have their careers clouded by folks focusing on the fact that they made a movie while being a woman. (Kathryn Bigelow is especially susceptible to this as she tends to make action movies, a genre associated with men.)  But is Coppola's success due to her talent or the novelty of her gender in the world of film direction?

Coppola has more than proven herself able to stand among the great contemporary directors (an Oscar and a Golden Lion on her mantle).  As I said, I'm a big fan of hers but I, by no means, find her infallible.  I find her last film, "Somewhere," to be dull.  And I don't even like "The Virgin Suicides" very much (I was drawn more to the tone and style of the film).  But I love "Lost in Translation" and I think that "Marie Antoinette" is a hugely underrated film.  So with a 50-50 track record, where does Coppola's newest film, "The Bling Ring," stand?

It's pretty damn good.

"The Bling Ring" is based on an article from Vanity Fair.  Some teenagers from fairly wealthy families decide to start robbing celebrity homes by trolling internet gossip sites.  They learn which celebrities (whose fashion sense they admire) are away from home and burglarize them.  Outside of the actual events (which are chronicled very closely to the truth), Coppola's adaption focuses on young people's obsession with celebrity.  The dialogue is, of course, crafted for a film but Coppola includes a few choice quotes from the actual criminals.  These quotes are the most ridiculous things the characters say.  It's as if Coppola zeroed in on these snippets and crafted a film based on the pathology implied by them.

The camerawork is soft and easy, yet ready to explode into an orgy of avarice.  Jewelry, shoes, blouses, and sunglasses are treated like buried treasure.  Haute couture designer names are cast about like gold coins.  The clean, bland, almost pastel world of these kids' normal lives serves as a marvelous juxtaposition to the crazed, brightly colored, feeding frenzies that erupt when these kids enter their favorite celebrities' homes.

The performances are ok, if a little underplayed.  The line delivery is often flat and monotonous.  But that acting choice permeates so many of the performances for so much of the movie that I wonder if that was an intentional direction given to the actors.  It's as if the characters' apathy is expressed through their line readings.  The two actors who avoid this (and therefore shine) are Emma Watson and Leslie Mann.  Mann plays Watson's mother.  I think that they are allowed to be expressive because those characters are not apathetic.  Mann wants her family to be the best they can be.  And Watson doesn't want to just look like a celebrity, she wants to be a celebrity.

"The Bling Ring" is definitely worth your time.  It's only 90 minutes long and the pacing is incredibly brisk.  I can't wait for the next 3-4 years to pass by.  That's how long Coppola usually takes to put out a new movie.  But until then, it's good to know there's an awesome lady out there making great movies.

7.5 out of 10

World War Z

I don't know what I expected from this movie, but I definitely didn't expect to be bored.  How is that even possible?  This is a zombie movie!  Somehow, every sequence with zombies is the worst part of the movie.  Unfortunately around the halfway point of the film, every second has zombies.

I love zombies.  That doesn't mean much in this current climate of pop culture-zombie oversaturation.  Everyone loves zombies.  My point is that I'm not some kind of zombie-hater.  I also have no problem with fast zombies.  I prefer slow zombies but there's room for all kinds of undead corpses in the cinema world.  So let's break down what it was that did cause me to heavily dislike "World War Z."

 

1) Terrible CGI.  It is hugely distracting how fake the zombies look.  They look like rubber people.  Remember how bad the CGI was during the courtyard fight between Neo and Agent Smith in "The Matrix Reloaded?" (Click here for a refresher.) That at least has the excuse of being brand new technology.  A decade later, it looks even worse.  It doesn't help that the edits keep cutting from CG zombies to real zombies.  That just showcases how bad the CG zombies look.  Most of the other CG effects don't fare much better.  The helicopters, planes, cars, etc. are dreadful.  For a movie that cost $125 million, it looks incredibly shoddy.

 

2) Shaky cam.  Yep, I'm going to complain about this again.  Director Marc Forster used it heavily in "Quantum of Solace" and the result was a borderline incoherent James Bond movie.  Now he has turned that incoherence on the apocalypse.  It isn't too big a deal, because this is a PG-13 movie.  If you can't see what's going on, you can't get an R for violence.  Also, I just didn't care what was happening.  So why bother showing me it?

 

3) No stakes.  Sure, Brad Pitt has to find a cure in order to save mankind.  But why do I care about him?  Because he has a family?  His family is completely safe.  Because he's trying to save mankind?  He actually doesn't know what he's even looking for so there is no chase.  He's just a man wandering around getting the people around him killed. (Dozens or more people die as a direct result of his actions/stupidity.) Basically, we are supposed to care because it's Brad Pitt.  It's not enough.

 

4) Mireille Enos.  Not that she's bad.  It's that she's not in it enough.  I'm a fan of the AMC show "The Killing."  Enos is a great, naturalistic actress.  We get hints early on at how well she and Pitt play off of each other.  I wanted more.  Instead, she is abandoned so we can watch digital zombies that move like Raggedy Ann.  This movie would've been so much better as a story about a family trying to survive the zombie apocalypse.  Not only would we have an emotional core to make the audience care, but we would've had more of Mireille Enos.  Maybe we'll see her more in the sequel. (Oh God!  They're making a sequel!!!!)

 

5) Luck.  Everything that happens to Brad Pitt is sheer luck.  Someone or something always happens at the last second to prevent his death/injury.  When he survives a horrific plane crash, it's as if the writers realized that he's a little too lucky.  So, he regains consciousness to find a rather large piece of shrapnel lodged in his guts.  It is removed immediately afterward and he returns to his mission as if nothing happened.  He should be battling a massive infection.  Instead, he's back to being the best at everything on Earth.

 

6) Brad Pitt is the best at everything on Earth.  What is/was his job exactly?  It seems from the dialogue that he worked for the U.N. helping build houses and wells for impoverished people in third world countries. (According to Wikipedia, Pitt is a U.N. investigator.) Judging by his actions, he's some sort of retired super soldier who can engage in diplomacy as well as he can perform battlefield surgery, experiment with pathogens, and make pancakes.  It's ridiculous. 

 

7) The mission.  The U.N. sends Brad Pitt to escort a brilliant scientist on a mission to find Patient Zero.  The logic is that any virus can be cured or vaccinated against if only the original carrier is found.  They literally say this.  As if HIV and Ebola could've been negated with a blood sample from the first person to catch it.  As to why Pitt would not only be sent as an escort (a dozen Special Forces guys are going too) but why the U.N. sought him out so doggedly (aren't there other people nearby who can engage in diplomacy?), we may never know.  The head U.N. guy says that it's because Pitt has been to "countries like this before."  But sending a man with no expertise in virology to a country he's never been to seems like a bad idea.  It seems like he'd just be a burden who could potentially make mistakes that cause the deaths of several people.  Which is what happens.  Also, the scientist dies within minutes of landing in South Korea (from an accidental, self-inflicted gunshot to the head).  Pitt then takes on the task himself.  But if the intent was to have Pitt do this all in the first place, why introduce the scientist at all?  Why make up the convoluted plot of sending a U.N. investigator to escort a scientist?  Just write a script wherein Brad Pitt plays a scientist!  The biggest slap in the face is that Patient Zero is never found.  The key to a vaccine is discovered through simple observation that could've been done back in New York and avoided all the human deaths that Pitt's character caused throughout the film.  It's like the ending of "The Hangover" except that "World War Z" isn't fun.

 

Just don't waste your time with this movie.  It's stupid and boring.  Go grab a copy of Max Brooks' original novel.  The book and movie have nothing in common except the title.  Maybe seek out some other zombie movie instead if you need your undead fix.  But just don't put yourself through this.

 

4 out of 10

Star Trek Into Darkness

I'm going to make a lot of complaints about this movie, so  I'm going to let you know early that I ultimately enjoyed "Star Trek Into Darkness."  Now that that's out of the way, let's get into some of the issues this movie has.

 

1) The lens flares are getting to be a bit much.  I firmly believe that J. J. Abrams is exponentially increasing the amount of lens flares with each film as a way of giving the finger to all the people who complain about them.  So, I just want to extend the olive branch to Abrams in hopes that maybe he'll tone it down a bit: Mr. Abrams, I don't mind and even kinda like your lens flares but in moderation.  You're rapidly approaching a point in your career where your movies will be indistinguishable from footage of a strobe light.  I'm concerned that Star Wars 7 may give me a seizure. 

 

2) The whole movie should be about Bones and Scotty, because every other character is terrible.  Kirk has learned nothing from the events of the last film nor does he learn from the events of this film.  He's a cocky asshole who's arrogance directly results in calamity.  Star Fleet needs to stop demoting him and have him summarily executed.  It's for the good of the Federation and Earth.  Spock is whiny and inconsistent.  He is wholly unlikable.  Kirk's cocksure swagger could be considered charming to some, but Spock is just a shithead.  Spock and Kirk are only friends in these films because they were on the show.  Every other character is either an irrelevant nod to the show or a flat, bland waste of screen time.  The next movie should just be Scotty and Bones hanging out and every once in a while Kirk runs by (because everyone runs everywhere)on his way to cause a disaster that gets him demoted and then later runs by again on his way to cause a bigger disaster that gets him reinstated.

 

3) Khan.  "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a remake of "The Wrath of Khan."  But not a full remake.  It's just meaningless fan service.  Benedict Cumberbatch plays a villain who goes by the name "John Harrison" but upon being captured reveals (with the camera slowly pushing in and dramatic music rising) that he is actually... KHAN! (duh-duh-DAAAH!! The music actually does that too.)  It comes out of nowhere and means nothing.  It's actually incredibly out of place and confusing.  It's played out as if it means something important but it only means that in 1982 another Star Trek movie had a villain named "Khan."  If the villain of this movie had remained "John Harrison," it would've changed nothing.

 

4) Too many Star Trek references.  The first movie had plenty of references that felt organic and fun and (most importantly) remained in the background.  For "Star Trek Into Darkness," it was as if the writers had a huge list of Star Trek references that didn't make the first movie but were concerned that there would never be another "Star Trek" movie.  So, they better shove them all into this one!  It's relentless and distracting.  "The Expendables 2" spent a huge amount of time winking at the camera and referencing its actors' careers, but "The Expendables 2" is trying to be a semi-comedic callback to 80s action.  "Star Trek Into Darkness" is trying to be a serious action/sci-fi film. 

 

5) The plot makes no sense.  Now you may watch this movie and say, "Doug, I understood the plot."  But trust me, you didn't.  Here's a fun exercise.  Explain the plot in detail.  And I mean scene by scene detail.  You will quickly realize that much of what happens is impossible or lacking motivation.  I spent a good portion of this movie asking "why?" and "how?"  Luckily, Abrams is able to craft a fairly fun action around this overly complex and baffling plot.

After all that, how can I claim to have liked this movie? (Trust me.  I could spend way more time dissecting this movie.) I can't fully explain why I like this movie.  Abrams is an excellent filmmaker who can make even incomprehensible dreck exciting.  The action scenes are inventive, coherent, and expertly executed.  The TV show was fueled by ideas; the movie is fueled by things going "boom."  And this movie does that about as well as a popcorn summer blockbuster can hope to do.  Plus, it has Karl Urban and Simon Pegg killing it as Bones and Scotty.

 

I've complained all summer about terrible screenplays being disguised by incredible filmmaking.  But for some unknown reason, I'm giving "Star Trek" a pass.  Maybe it's because "Star Trek Into Darkness" is simply nonsensical and that's easily to swallow than thematic issues or idiocy or mean-spiritedness. 

If you have surround sound, check this movie out and crank it up.  Make some popcorn, sit back, and let the concussive waves of sound and pretty pictures distract you.  If you let the plot problems get to you, you may not like it.  Luckily, it's a fairly forgettable movie.  Try to enjoy it while it lasts.

6 out of 10

Striker

Finding a decent poster for this movie was a bit tough, so I just used the VHS cover art (I watched this movie on VHS too).  This was a random 50¢ thrift shop find.  I don't know why I decided to watch it so soon after "Alienator," but I'm glad I did.  Turns out that "Striker" also has John Phillip Law in a supporting role!

But the real actor to watch "Striker" for is Frank Zagarino in his breakout role before skyrocketing to international stardom.  All kidding aside, Zagarino is a pretty good low-budget, action hero.  His acting is no worse than Stallone and better than a lot of Schwarzenegger movies.  Somehow, he lacks a strong screen presence.  He's very generic. 

 

"Striker" is about a former super-soldier who is framed and must take a job rescuing a hostage journalist from a South American dictator.  He teams up with a local woman who knows the local of the journalist and the surrounding jungle.  Together, they kill an army using increasingly bizarre and inventive methods.

 

It turns out that "Striker" is directed by Enzo Castellari under the pseudonym "Stephen M. Andrews."  Anyone who knows the films of Castellari knows that he only makes movies that are insane and awesome.  "Striker" does not disappoint.

 

This was one of the more gleefully bizarre movies I've seen in a long while.  It's basically "Rambo" but cheap and Italian.  But how can that kind of movie attract an audience?  By being a relentless onslaught of murder/lunacy.  The hero (Striker) kills soldiers with such ridiculous ease that he quickly begins using new weapons not because he's out of ammo, but because he can.  He sets aside an fully loaded assault rifle in order to kill a guy with a collapsible slingshot.  And he uses it once!  That means that Striker specifically requested that his arsenal include a collapsible slingshot just so he could kill one man with it!  And that's one of the more sane moments in this movie!  Striker magically produces weapons with an ease that would go unseen until the "Grand Theft Auto" games.  There's a scene where he goes from weaponless to just picking grenades up off the ground and throwing them at guys.  I thought he was grabbing rocks (because he's in the middle of a jungle) until those rocks started exploding.  It's either magic or he just happened upon the world's most random cadre of grenades.

 

Every second is thoroughly entertaining.  I laughed and cheered and grinned like an idiot through the entire runtime.  This a movie I'll be watching regularly over the course of my lifetime.  I'll be forcing it on friends.  It's more fun than any Hollywood movie I've seen all summer.

 

6 out of 10 (But a 20 out of 10 on the awesomeness scale.)

Alienator

Look at that poster.  That's a lady!  No kidding.  As if that's not enough to get you curious, the tagline reads," In deep space, the deadliest animal is still woman."  What does that even mean?  Does that mean that woman is the deadliest animal on Earth too?  I had to watch "Alienator" if only to have my questions answered.

 

"Alienator" is a movie from director Fred Olen Ray, who's career is dominated by softcore porn.  This movie, however, managed to remain nudity-free.  Instead of boobs, Ray gives us a bizarre sci-fi, action flick about a group of teens in the woods who encounter an intergalactic fugitive.  But they are all soon set upon by a hulking robot woman who has been sent to destroy the fugitive "at any cost."  Soon, the kids are holed up in a cabin until they can find a way to defeat the cybernetic bounty hunter.

 

"Alienator" is definitely one of those "good-bad" movies, but it's not one of the greats.  There's enough schlock that I chuckled occasionally.  The space prison sets are wonderfully cheap.  The fight scenes are poorly shot and fought extremely slowly.  The fights are the best parts.  The second best parts are the scenes involving Ross Hagen acting his fucking ass off.

 

If you don't know who Ross Hagen is, please go find some of his movies.  He's amazingly bad.  But he believes so much in his performances that it's charming.  Ross Hagen on a cast list makes any movie a must-see.  Plus his voice is so gravely, it makes Vin Diesel sound like a pubescent teen.

 

Hagen's whole performance is incredible.  It starts off silently with plenty of wild-eyed terror at the prospect of his execution.  Then he escapes and is injured.  He is then comatose with occasional bouts of hysterical, choked screams.  It's hilarious.  But once his tracking collar is off, it's all menace and scenery chewing.  But his seriousness and dedication is undermined by his ridiculous costume.  It's all shoulder pads and black face paint.  He basically looks like any fan at an Oakland Raiders game (like a fucking idiot).  Despite the crummy costume and obvious low budget of the movie, Hagen gives it his all.

Someone get this man an Oscar!

The cheap, weird sci-fi plot points all come to a head in the final 20 minutes or so.  The robot develops emotion, Hagen turns out to be a shape shifter, there's a double cross.  It gets crazy.  Add in some hilariously bad special effects and watching "Alienator" becomes worth it if only for the last half hour.

 

So many "good-bad" or "funny-bad" movies have incredible replay value, but not so much with "Alienator."  I got everything I need from it the first time.  That's not to say it isn't worthwhile.  It's got a pretty awesome cast.  Ross Hagen kills it.  John Phillip Law is on autopilot but Law on autopilot is cooler than most actors' best day.  Jan-Michael Vincent rivals Hagen in giving a super serious performance.  Also, Joseph Pilato has a bit role in the space prison.  It's worth any bad movie aficionado's time. 

 

3 out of 10 (It should be noted that my ratings should not be taken at face value.  Obviously, "Alienator" and other hokey movies are of low quality.  Yet, they still have immense entertainment value.  My 1-10 scale is reflective only of the actual quality of the film.)

The Iceman

This movie has Michael Shannon playing a mafia hitman.  So, yeah, it's really good.  But is it actually good or is it just him?  The guy could read the phone book (or a sorority e-mail) and it would be enthralling.  Luckily, "The Iceman" is a well made film peppered with awesome performances.  I would venture to say that the actors elevate the material. 

This is a "true story" movie.  So movie-wise, the story is about a quiet man, Richard Kuklinski, who is recruited by a mafia honcho to kill people.  Kuklinski uses the money from his job to raise up a seemingly normal family.  Eventually, he is laid off from his job and must begin free-lance killings to pay the bills.  These killings draw the attention of angry mobsters and cops alike.

The plot makes for a touching and interesting fable but it's also my biggest issue with the film.  The movie is too short.  This is the best issue to have.  "The Iceman" clocks in at 105 minutes.  But it really should've been around 150.  The film made me want to stay with these characters and many of the situations feel underdeveloped.  After reading about Kuklinski's real-life exploits, I think this story needed two films.  The guy wasn't just a hitman; he was a full blown serial killer!

Abbreviated runtime aside, this is a great movie.  The camerawork is basic is a way that fits with the late-60s/early-70s aesthetic.  And that period aesthetic is awesome!  The detail is fantastic and the facial hair truly epic.

But as I said earlier, the performances drive this movie.  I'll save you anymore gushing over the awesomeness of Michael Shannon and instead gush over Winona Ryder.  She's fantastic.  Her mousy Jersey housewife is a role worthy of serious praise.  While Shannon rages through the film, she nearly steals the show with whispers.  The other standout is Chris Evans.  He's all mutton chops, groovy shirts, and cock-sure swagger.  Almost all his screen time is shared with Michael Shannon and it's electric.  Also of note are Ray Liotta as Kuklinski's mafia boss and Robert Davi as an older, more powerful Mafioso.  Davi is especially great with limited screen time.  His old school mobster clashes with Liotta's new mafia in some incredible scenes.  Stephen Dorff and James Franco make glorified cameos.

"The Iceman" is a solid installment in the crime genre.  It'll never be a classic but it's well worth your time.

7.5 out of 10

The Lords of Salem

Rob Zombie is the Quentin Tarantino of horror films.  Whereas Tarantino's films are peppered with homages and references to grindhouse and exploitation films, Zombie's films are full of horror homages.  With "The Lords of Salem," Zombie manages to marry constant references to other horror with a style that feels altogether original.  The result is hypnotic.

 

This is not a film for everyone.  It's extremely stylized.  The lighting bounces from daylight to near darkness to chiaroscuro without ever feeling jarring or inconsistent.  Color schemes change at the drop of a hat.  As the madness of the story reaches its crescendo, bizarre, psychedelic animation is intercut with rapid-fire shots of nightmare imagery.  Considering the beauty and horror of many of the shots, it's incredible that no digital effects were utilized in this movie.

 

"The Lords of Salem" is about a radio DJ who receives a record containing music that triggers a curse cast by witches executed during the Salem witch trials.  She wonders if she's losing her mind, but witches are indeed trying to use her to give birth to the son of Satan.

 

This story moves slowly yet deliberately.  Much like the horror films that Zombie reveres, "The Lords of Salem" is a film of atmosphere.  Characters that you've come to know and like plus horrific imagery equals terror.  This is more like "Rosemary's Baby" than anything Zombie has made before.

 

The performances are good enough for this type of movie.  The real magic of the cast are the copious supporting roles and cameos played by cult horror icons.  Udo Kier has a "blink and you'll miss it" cameo.  Lisa Marie appears briefly as does Zombie (and exploitation) staple Sid Haig.  But Meg Foster, Patricia Quinn, and Dee Wallace are the best of the horror stunt casting.  Maybe this kind of hyper-specific nerdiness skewed my judgment, but I enjoyed picking out all the bits of cult and classic horror films almost as much as the actual movie.

 

Again, this is not for everyone.  There's a lot of unattractive nudity.  And I mean A LOT!  But it's a great time.  If I had to sum it up in one sentence:  It's "Rosemary's Baby" by way of "Haxan" with a hefty dose of "The Shining" if it had been directed by Stan Brakhage.  That'll make sense to a very specific group of people.  And if you don't know about any of the items mentioned, seek those out too.  You'll thank me.

 

7.5 out of 10

Now You See Me

Did you know that Harry Houdini made movies?  Well, he did.  He starred in several silent movies that usually involved adventures requiring daring escapes.  They're a little hokey but well worth seeking out. 

I like magic.  I have a decent collection of illusionary trinkets, card packs, and how-to books.  I was hypnotized by those "secrets revealed" magic specials on TV.  Making a movie about magic and magicians is right up my alley.  So why did "Now You See Me" leave me cold?

The story concerns four people from different aspects of magic.  There's a mentalist, a sleight of hand master, an escape artist, and a stage magician.  They are brought together by a mysterious organization and begin a magic-themed crime spree as a part of this organization's hazing ritual.  All the while, they are being pursued by a couple dedicated cops and a man who exposes the secrets of magic.

I really liked the opening 15-20 minutes when we get to meet the magicians and see how they perform and behave.  My big issue is that once they all get together, the magic stops.  Seriously.  No more magic.  I understand that magic tricks are illusions that are meant to appear as if the impossible happened.  But none of what they do really counts as illusions either.  By that logic, "Ocean's Eleven" is a movie about magicians.  However, the wild, complicated plans in standard heist movies usually seem fairly plausible even if the weakness in the bank/safe/fortress/etc. is specifically written to allow for the wild, complicated plan.  In "Now You See Me," nothing is plausible.  Whenever the "how-they-did-it" flashbacks happened, I was left baffled.  It's supposed to show how mundane (and clever) the actual execution was, but instead it feels like actual magic.  Like wizards and warlocks-style magic.  The way they execute every crime is impossible.  This movie required a greater suspension of disbelief than I'm capable of giving.

Also, I know that after they are drawn together by the mysterious organization, The Eye, they disappear for a year.  Apparently during that time, Jessie Eisenberg and Isla Fischer were training to be world class jewel thieves/cat burglars.  Dave Franco became a ninja and Woody Harrelson learned how to instantly hypnotize anyone to do anything.  Eisenberg and Fischer's new skills are strange but didn't come off any dumber than the rest of the movie.  It's the newfound talents of Franco and Harrelson that really bothered me. 

At one point, Dave Franco is left behind by the others to destroy evidence and create a distraction allowing his partners to get away.  Apparently, they knew that, in just one year, Franco became the equivalent of eight Jet Li's.  He combines gymnastics, parkour, kung fu, pickpocketing, and instantaneous handcuff lock picking (and I thought Fischer was supposed to be the escape artist) to escape and beat the hell out of several armed police officers.  To top it all off, we also find out that he can flawlessly imitate anyone's voice (in this case Mark Ruffalo's intrepid FBI agent).  He uses this to issue orders to a S.W.A.T. unit over a walkie talkie.  It's like when little kids play superheroes and one kid keeps adding more powers to his arsenal until it's not fun anymore.

As for Woody Harrelson's super-hypnosis, it's used too much.  And by too much, I mean that it's used to explain away everything.  How did they get past the guards?  Hypnosis.  Why were there no witnesses?  Hypnosis.  Why did you let them get away?  Hypnosis.  I watched Danny Boyle's "Trance" not too long ago which is an entire movie about hypnosis and it still has less hypnosis than "Now You See Me."  But it's whatever nonsense the movie can throw out for "thrills" and "twists."

And speaking of twists, I sat in the theater dreading the ending.  I won't spoil the big, final twist.  I will say that I figured it out very early into the run time and just kept hoping I was wrong.  But I wasn't.  I never am.  As I said, I won't spoil it but I'll give you a clue straight out of Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

But that's not the worst part of the ending.  It's the awful, shoehorned romance between Mark Ruffalo's FBI agent and Mélanie Laurent's Interpol agent.  They are awful to each other and for each other.  Never during the course of the film does a single moment exist where any sort of romantic spark begins.  But right at the end, just before the credits, they're making out and holding hands and talking about the future together.  I wish I could say it's the most awkward, out-of-place, and unearned romance of the summer, but "Man of Steel" gets that honor. 

"Now You See Me" is not a good movie.  I shouldn't have expected much from a director like Louis Leterrier, the man who made "Transporter 2" and the "Clash of the Titans" remake.  If someone tries to get you to watch this, you should disappear (preferably in a puff of smoke).

3 out of 10