News: "Strip H2 from its 30-year-old theme!" says Rob Zombie

Okay, so maybe Robbie didn't actually say those words, but according to Arrow in the Head and an interview on MTV, Zombie has reported that he may very well not use John Carpenter's theme from the original Halloween movies (which was also a focus in Zombie's remake), in his upcoming film, H2.

We’re going to do something completely different. We haven’t gotten to that point yet so we could change our minds, but we want to do something totally different. The movie is very raw and very rough looking so the score has to [reflect that].

When asked about what kind of score Zombie might use for the film (MTV mentioning heavy metal), Zombie replied:

“No, I wouldn’t do anything like that,” said Zombie. “The score’s going to be tricky. We’re going to have to find a really sort of dissident ambient score. Unsettling rather than traditional score which seemed too grand and too musical so we have to find the right [tone].”

It's a mixed feeling I get when I think about not using the original Halloween score. On one hand, we have Zombie trying to save H2 from being another tired rehash of the original, and that's a huge positive in my book. He's trying to do something different, take a fresh look with new eyes at the original and create something that can stand on its own. On the other hand, I think that it's certainly going to be hard to come up with a more effective score than Carpenter's, and hardcore fans of the series are going to jump all over the fact that Zombie's score is lacking in suspense.

Only time will tell whether Zombie comes up with a good moody piece for this installment of the franchise. It's not set in stone whether or not Zombie does come up with a new score anyway, and all of this is just speculation. I'm very interested to see what Zombie has up his sleeve for H2, as the original is one of my favorites in the series and I thoroughly enjoyed his first remake. Stay tuned to the Web for more updates on Zombie's project, as there has been a steady torrent of new information every week.

Source:

MTV's interview

Arrow in the Head

Book Review: Your Heart Belongs to Me by Dean Koontz

Your Heart Belongs to Me

Dean Koontz is known for having similar underlying themes in his novels; most of them include something to do with amoral villains planning some sort of horrific event to harm the individual in the book. While his basic structures aren't totally mindblowing, the scaffolding that he builds off of yields some interesting and varied concepts that push the boundaries of the thriller genre. In Your Heart Belongs to Me, we see Koontz taking on a few new territories for him (or at least a slight turn from his recent slew of stories) that guide his thematic ideas in a different direction.

Enter Ryan Perry, a thirty-something young man who has made a huge name for himself with his work on computer programming and the Internet. Meet his girlfriend, a beautiful young woman named Samantha who shares Ryan's love of writing, but in a different sense; she is currently busy working on a novel. Ryan is out surfing one day with Sam when he has a life-changing experience - a mini-seizure with shortness of breath and pain in his chest. A few doctor visits later, Ryan finds out that he has enlargement of the heart, a symptom of an inherited disease that the doctors call cardiomyopathy. The doctor gives Ryan less than a year to live unless he can get a heart transplant. 

Before Ryan gets the diagnosis of inherited cardiomyopathy, he believes that someone might have tried to poison him, as that is one of a number of causes that could lead to the cardiomyopathy. He snoops around, investigating Sam's mother and her boyfriend and even his own caretakers. When he finds out it couldn't have been poisoning, he still keeps his suspicions as he undergoes the surgery without telling his girlfriend. A year later, he and Sam are broken up because of Ryan's insistence on finding a heart quickly, and Ryan is now targeted by a homocidal woman who looks exactly like the lady who gave Ryan his new heart. What's going on in Ryan's life? Read the book.

For the most part, Koontz's prose is spot-on, and his attention to detail, along with his elegant similes, metaphors, and alliteration, allow for easy and fast reading. His chapters are short and concise, getting to the real meat of the situation without a long wind-up which keeps the plot moving at a fast clip. His voice comes through like always, especially in the dialogue, which always tends to be a bit comedic and heavy on the jokes and wordplay. 

The plot is engaging, not so much because of Koontz's great use of foreshadowing but because of the mixed feelings the reader gets about the protagonist. Ryan is a man that has both good and bad qualities rolled into one, a mixed bag of both gentle lovability and paranoid forcefulness. It's hard to get a good impression of Ryan; at points, he seems like a great guy, paying his employees well and treating Samantha with the utmost respect. Yet his characterization gives him a fishy attitude that the reader won't exactly trust, a staplepoint of Koontz's novel. It is due to Koontz's successful juxtaposition between caring-boyfriend-Ryan and suspicious-greedy-backstabbing-Ryan that the book's theme of greed and wealth can truly be played out.

At first, I was a little bit thrown by Koontz's use of a rich man as a protagonist. Normally, his characters are everyday people thrown into stressful and empowering situations. Here, Ryan is thrown into a stressful situation that it is obvious he has the ability to overcome; for this, the beginning drags on a little too long as Ryan becomes significantly worried about his health and who is poisoning him. The actual bulk of the plot doesn't begin to become clear to the reader until about 200 pages in, making it seem as though both of the two conflicts are equally important when in reality they aren't. 

Yet the middle of the novel throws a lot of stuff at the reader that would hold the attention span of even the wildest of ADHD kids. There's mention of ghosts, mysterious visitations, and even... even... TWINS. Coors Light knows what I'm talking about. Even though it seemed random, I was captivated by Koontz's prose - until I reached the end of the novel, where he left me hanging as to some explanations. 

This is the main problem I had with the finale; the conclusion is lacking in both depth and surprise. For a while, I was confused as to why Samantha broke up with Ryan and would not marry him, but as we see his paranoid delusions and greedy need for a heart, it's not a big surprise when the "twist" is revealed. The evidence is stacked really high against Ryan - it was not hard to piece together, and I felt like it dropped off in intensity too much. Even the final confrontation with the villain is a little cliched and worn; there's a standoff and then no climax. It feels almost forced and is a disappointment when the reader has come so far only to find nothing to exhilarate them. 

Samantha plays a large part in the first third of the novel, but once her and Ryan break up with each other, she drops out of the plot significantly. This was actually a welcome transition for the novel, since Samantha's glowing presence helps the reader fully recognize Ryan's weaknesses. However, towards the end of the story there is a bit of an emotional tug towards wanting to see Ryan and Sam back together, and Koontz gives us a bit of unrequited love here that leaves us wanting more but is a giant difference between Koontz's happier endings. I applaud this experimentation, and though the audience may not be happy with the turn of events, it definitely feels more genuine. 

Even though Your Heart Belongs to Me may be lacking a few key moments, Koontz has done well to write a novel distinguishing itself from his more current back catalogue. As with Stephen King, as Koontz ages it seems his characters are forced to examine their own mortalities, not in the face of a person or enemy but with the collapse of their own bodies. Here, Koontz uses the interesting concept of a heart transplant as a setup for a traditional revenge story that enlightens on the political and monetary aspect of the medical world. Koontz talks a lot about subtext in the novel, and while his seems to slightly hit the reader over the head, he's done a good job crafting a story that is in essence familiar and refreshing, if just a little bleak.

News: CBS to premiere new "realistic" serial slasher Harper's Island

April 9, fans of murder mysteries and serial shows like Lost may have something to look forward to: Harper's Island, a new series created by Ari Schlossberg, hits the airwaves of CBS to begin a thirteen-episode rampage. 

The series, which expresses the fact that one of the cast members will be killed off in each episode, will conclude at the end of its only season. With a cast of relatively no-name actors, it will be interesting to see if the show's gimmick succeeds, as a show such as this will need to be mainly character-driven in order for the audience to care if any of the cast make it off the island.

Harper's Island sounds promising, though, because of its attempts to bring horror onto CBS, a channel which is severly lacking in that department. It remains to be seen how violent the show will actually get, although the more the better for drawing in viewers.

I expect that the show's first episode will have a high Nielsen rating, with the audience very curious as to how the show will pan out. If they stay tuned in, however, will depend on how well the show sticks to its promises.

Yet for some reason, I can't shake the fact that we've seen something like this on TV before. Does anyone remember a relatively obscure series that ran on FOX in the summer of 2001 called Murder in Small Town X? This was a reality television show which took contestants to a city that was being subject to mysterious murders. It was the job of the contestants to figure out who the killer was before they were "killed" themselves. 

It only lasted that one season, but it was a really unique twist on the reality TV series and seemed to help inspire Harper's Island. Either way, though, I will be tuning in for (or DVRing) the first episode of Harper's Island to see if the fuss that CBS is making about it is worth it. I'm sincerely hoping this becomes a horror-Lost, because that would just make my year. Watch for a review of it here, and bring discussion!

News: Shawnee Smith to spearhead Saw VI?

Rumors are circulating that Shawnee Smith, who played Amanda in the Saw franchise from Saw II to Saw IV, will be reprising her role in the upcoming sequel this Halloween. It comes as no surprise that these sequences with Smith will be presented as flashbacks, as this is what the Saw films are known for, but what is a bit intriguing is the fact that Smith will play a big part in the conclusion.

"Shawnee Smith will in fact be filming brand new scenes for Lionsgate's Saw VI. All of her scenes will be flashback sequences (because she's dead), while the biggest news is that she will play a major role in the outcome of the film."

This quote, from Bloody-Disgusting, doesn't do much to shed light on the new plot, but it does put the audience in an odd predicament - do we actually want Amanda back?

Last year's Saw V suffered, in my eyes, from its overly complex and reaching plot. It tried to take too many concepts, stuff them together with flashbacks, and serve it on a platter. The cohesion of the original Saw was lost as filmmakers struggled to tie up loose ends from the other films in the franchise that weren't exactly loose to begin with. 

Here again, we learn that Saw VI will delve into the past again, although it seems Amanda and Jigsaw's past couldn't become any more complicated. In the other films, their relationship was basically narrated to the point where it doesn't seem possible to fit another story arc in. This is especially worrying with the news that Smith will be a major player in the film's wrap-up. Where can the filmmakers go now with Amanda, and if they do manage to find some sort of loophole to work on, will the audience want to go there?

If the sales from Saw V's box office are any indication, the answer is a resounding yes. But as they keep tacking on the Roman numerals to the moniker, I'm getting more and more frustrated with the lack of quality and the overreaching, muddled plots; if these Amanda flashbacks don't pan out, Saw may just lose a lot of its more analytical and critical fanbase.  

Source: Arrow in the Head

Special Movie Review - Definitely, Maybe

Definitely, Maybe

Directed by Adam Brooks, this romantic comedy's poster will certainly attract the attention of fans of Bridget Jones's Diary - that is, of course, the point. But Definitely, Maybe takes a slightly different form in storytelling, especially for romcoms, which makes it stand out from the rest.

Ryan Reynolds stars as Will Hayes, a father who is faced with the dilemma of explaining to his daughter, Maya (Abigail Breslin), why he and his wife are getting a divorce. It's only made harder when Maya learns about sex, which brings her to the question of how she was created. Will tells Maya about his mixed up relationships in the past. Three women used to be in Will's life, and the story becomes a game to Maya, who tries to guess which of the women is her mother. There's Emily (Elizabeth Banks), Will's college romance; April (Isla Fisher), a very fun-loving, random NYC girl; and Summer (Rachel Weisz), a mysterious journalist. It's a story within a story, with interludes where Maya expresses her fascination (or disapproval) of her father's past. 

Will's story is intriguing but somewhat unbelievable. As Will leaves his college crush for the big bad city of NYC, he comes across two lovely women who fall head-over-heels in love with him. While Ryan Reynolds is an attractive man, it's highly unlikely that he would find two women along with his girlfriend who would be so engaged with him. This is no longer a love triangle, but a love... square? Either way, Will Hayes' personality doesn't seem likable enough to warrant three women who want to date him.

Yet even if Will's story seems fictional, there's still a redeeming quality about it because of the fact that as we hear the narrative, we are in the same position as little Maya; the plot becomes a mystery of sorts as we try to figure out who the mother is in the relationship. It's an interesting concept that gives a lot more weight to the romantic comedy, because it allows for more viewer participation rather than just sitting back and letting the events unfold. With Will telling the story, the audience is a willing observer, a fly on the wall, and it is difficult to foresee the ending. There's a bit of foreshadowing here and there, but otherwise the film does a great job of keeping the conclusion under wraps.

Ryan Reynolds plays his part fairly well, although he doesn't seem to be the father type. At points, he's more like an aged friend of Maya's rather than a father figure. A lot of his actions are very self-focused, which could be a reason for the divorce, but it does not explain his overly affectionate feelings towards Maya at the end of the film. However, Reynolds is successful in his portrayal as a political figure; he exudes a personality that is outspoken, knowledgable, driven, and full of leadership, qualities which make him a perfect candidate for work in politics. Sometimes, Will can come off as prickish, but it feels intentional, and although Reynolds is much better at boyish qualities, he pulls off this flaw with ease.

Abigail Breslin is the second standout here, coming off of her highly successful roll in Little Miss Sunshine. Here again she shines because of her bright demeanor and intense emotional reactions, showcasing her ability to provide needed comic relief in times of drama but also escalating the drama in the lulls. Her character is fairly mature for the age that she is portraying, which may be construed as a bit of a negative aspect because of the tendency for Breslin to flip-flop between confused child and all-knowing adult. Most of the time, though, Maya's interludes add a lot to the film, because they allow for the film to self-critique itself and joke about its own content.

Even though the main characters are detailed and engaging, two of the women that Will falls for are semi-irritating. Emily is seemingly easy-going and good-natured at first, but as we take the trip through Will's life, we find that it is no surprise that she becomes Maya's mother and is the wife that Will is divorcing. She's too fake and thoughtless, a woman with no real personality. The other dud here is Summer, whose emotions are too varied and extravagant. It's so hard to read how she's really feeling that one just stops trying, and her personality is quite eccentric. 

These women, though, feel less like a flaw and more like an integral part of the plot. In reality, it seems the audience is not supposed to like them to make room for Will's love interest with April - a woman who is much more suited to Will than the other two mistresses. April is fun and, most importantly, interesting, something which Emily and Summer lack in large quantities. It is refreshing to find that, through it all, Will is reunited with April, the girl that he should have married in the first place. In this, the audience feels that they have made a discovery along with Will and Maya, playing a part in this happier ending.

Though Definitely, Maybe doesn't differ much from the current fodder of romantic comedies, the film has a certain aura about it that draws the viewer in more than other films of this nature. We are directly involved with the actions, and our expectations are always changing as Will switches between women. The film can get long at times, though, and Will's everchanging fascination with all three women, continuously being wooed by each love interest, can become tedious. But on the whole, Definitely, Maybe surprises because of its ability to tell not one but two interesting stories at once and intertwine them with slightly corny romance.

Oh, and Kevin Kline's in this, but his part is so meager and frustrating that it's not worth mentioning in great detail.

Definitely, Maybe on Rotten Tomatoes

Book Review - Death: A Life by George Pendle

Death: A Life by George Pendle

The mystique of death has been entertaining to mere mortals for centuries, partly because of our miniscule understanding of passing on. Death has numerously been portrayed as a being, yet one thing is clear about George Pendle's witty novel: it's also fun to give Death a little exposition.

The title of Death: A Life is pretty straightforward in terms of summing up the book. Death travels from Hell to Earth, where God places him in charge of gathering souls to send on to the afterlife. Death finds a satisfying eternity with this never-ending job, constantly conversing with the souls he collects. But after a while, Death begins to mull over what it would be like to have a Life, especially after an enigmatic woman named Maud keeps being reincarnated on Earth and wooing Death into killing her. The journey that Death takes is a long one, and he soon finds himself faced with an ironic dilemma which threatens his existence.

Pendle's novel is filled with creative appeal to those tired of reading about death. The biography that Pendle writes is full of historical and biblical references, even "explaining" religious events in humorous or intentionally sarcastic ways. It's interesting to see your favorite Bible passage skewed out of context, and Pendle does it with panache. 

Another concept that Pendle implements into the scheme of things is his upbeat take on dying and passing over. Rather than create a brooding, melancholy atmosphere, Pendle keeps it light and fluffy, skipping over cause of death and choosing to focus on the lighthearted motif of how souls pass over into the better life. When a person dies, Death takes their soul and flings it into the Darkness for God to judge, and the souls have no problem with their, well, death. Even towards the end of the novel, the creatures of Earth rebel against God's decision to get rid of Death, stating how he is one of the only reliable things about Life. It's a change of pace to see death as a stability in our lives, and Pendle treats passing on with a sense of happiness that is refreshing and uplifting. It's a good thing, or the novel wouldn't be much of a comedy.

Pendle's humor can be very funny, but it can also waver into almost non-existence. The satire of religion and society is riveting and theatrical, always in the background but rarely rearing outwardly with a desperation to get the message out. The comedy is also very subtle, and it is this slight hint at jokes that the reader will laugh the most at. The first half of the book is rife with witty wordplay and Biblical gags, but once the reader gets into the more serious side of the book's plot, the humor starts to slip. It's a minor disappointment, since the beginning of the novel was so quick to jump into the comedy. Yet the book never really suffers from corny jokes or ruthless sarcasm; everything has its place in the novel without coming off as over-reaching boundaries.

I found the love story between Maud and Death a refreshing look at the relationships between Life and Death, two beings that can never be matched together. There's a sense of unrequited love that carries the reader to the inevitable conclusion of Death wanting a soul of his own. It's unique, it's entertaining, and rewarding to find that everyone becomes unhappy with their place in life - or eternity. 

One of my favorite parts of the book was its take on historical data. As we travel through Earth time, we get to see many battles and civilizations, emphasizing how long Death has been with us. We spend so much time with Death without many human interactions that we begin to understand the predicament that Death is in as an entity that struggles to find his inner self. He shows similar inward emotions as humans do, and the reader can definitely relate to Death's personality. It again represents a relationship between Life and Death, an interesting idea that Pendle explores pertinently. 

Death: A Life may waver in the comedic portion of its experiment, but it surely makes up for that in sheer creativity by expressing Death's own thoughts. This is Final Destination from the Grim Reaper's point of view, and less gruesome at that, succeeding more at great storytelling than humor. Without becoming misanthropic, Pendle creates a realistic fictional world that utilizes historical and biblical backgrounds to bring his characters to life, human or fantastical. The novel becomes a sort of handbook for thinking about the afterlife, and while fictional, it does give a different perspective on what it means to die, and what happens to our souls. New age thinking, or just adaptations on a theme? Either way, Pendle shows us there is a point to our lives, and that they are worth living. So go out and live them, and while you're at it, read this book.

Television Review - Dollhouse Episode 2: The Target

Dollhouse Episode 2: The Target

What a beauty!

A little late on the review, I know, since we're already about 5 episodes into the series, but it's better late than never.

"The Target" has our protagonist doll, Echo (Eliza Dushku), taking on the persona of outdoorswoman, where she spends an afternoon with a new client to the Dollhouse corporation. Rather than a nice, calm day at the pond, though, Echo finds that her "friend" Richard, (Matt Keesler), actually wants to slice and dice her with his compound bow and arrow. While she tries to make her way out of the woods alive, her handler, Boyd Langton (Henry J. Lennix), is assaulted by Richard's henchman, and after realizing that Echo is most probably in danger, shambles off to her rescue. Through the course of the episode, we get a little bit of backstory about how Boyd came to be Echo's handler, and an even smaller segment where detective Paul Ballard (Tahmoh Penikett) continues to search for clues about Dollhouse.

The second episode of Joss Whedon's series continues to maintain a different storyline that was hinted at in the premier of the show. While the setup allows the show to go in a different direction each episode, I feel like it is important that the show establishes a long-running arc to really draw in viewers. Right now, the plot does not feel very cohesive, rarely referencing the episode before it. While it's not necessary, I think that the show needs to identify its main theme soon.

Dushku remains her typical self here, and while it seems natural for her to be a normal girl in this episode, I haven't seen much out of her that tells me she'll be good at taking on drastically different characters. She does a good job in "The Target," but the point of her taking on this job as outdoorswoman seems hidden or ambiguous.

Dollhouse has done a good job of putting us in the present of the situation, but not much has been explained to us as to the origins of the company. The exposition that is focused on in this episode is interesting, but not as important as, say, the more technical matters of the corporation. However, I can see how Detective Ballard's investigation will give us more insight into Dollhouse's background. 

The problem that I have with melding the investigation and Echo's assignments is that too much time is spent on Echo and not enough time on Ballard, making it very uneven. Ballard barely gets time to find a clue and then we are shifted back to Echo and her escape from some dangerous situation. These first two episodes have taken on almost exactly the same plot setup as well, which makes me wonder about how the show can switch things up as it progresses.

The show is still pretty interesting, however, and one should set aside all qualms until the show really heats up. I'm hoping that it will build momentum as it goes and is just having a rough time getting into the action. It shows promise, but there's a lot of repetition going on that has me worried for the future of the series. I just pray the public tunes in so that FOX doesn't cancel the show in its infancy.

Special Movie Review - Watchmen

Watchmen

A film based on the extremely popular 1987 comic series of the same name has been a long time in coming. Finally, after fanboys all over the world wet their pants with the news that the graphic series was getting a film adaptation, the verdict is out: Hollywood did a fine job of bringing the comic to life.

Watchmen is actually very complicated in its scope of themes and plot. The story is convoluted with minor details into characters' lives and the like, but the major rundown is this - it is the 1980s, nuclear war is threatening to drive the world into a frenzy and maybe even annihalate all living beings. Russia and the US are at a standstill, each attempting to uncover what the other is doing. Only the Watchmen, a group of disbanded superheroes, can stop this threat, but only one of the group, Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), is actually still practicing his "trade." People from the original Watchmen are being killed off, and Rorschach is tracing the clues back to his friends. Eventually, the Watchmen are brought together, including Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), who, with his already radioactive body, has the ability to stop a nuclear blast. The Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) and Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman) also join in the fight for humanity's survival, but each of them has their own problem to deal with before saving the world.

This is only an infinitesimal part of the plot, and while it's way too intricate to elaborate on in just a short paragraph, it is brought out fully during the film. It should be, though; with a run time of almost three hours, Watchmen is a movie that requires full attention. The film is long, but it is necessary to incorporate all of the details that makes Watchmen such a fine superhero movie. 

Part of the strength of the film is the centrality of character. Each Watchman has his or her own personal flaws and abilities, and a lot of the plot centers around giving each character their own distinguished exposition. This is critical to the motif of the film; without the Watchmen's conflict, there would be no point in watching another film where the superheroes save the world. Watchmen takes this premise and almost flips it upside down. Instead of saving the world, the superheroes are at times doing more harm than good. Every superhero has a huge inner struggle, especially the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who reminds more of the criminals that he pursues than Batman or Superman. No, these superheroes are far from perfect, which is what makes them seem all the more real. They're not invincible or even morally sound - they are only human, and that's a scary thing when we think that they could be in control of our lives.

It helps that Watchmen's characters have actors that can really fulfill their unique personas. Haley as Rorschach brings about a significant look into the character, getting down and dirty with his human flaws while trying to be a perfect superhero. There's a lot of misanthropy here from the superheroes towards the "normal" humans - in essence, the Watchmen ostracize themselves and are ostracized by the public, and the theme of humans dwindling into nothingness because of their own nuclear destruction is an idea that strikes the Watchmen as somewhat fitting. Why protect a race that doesn't care? A chilling thought, perhaps, but one that we see more and more in our increasingly violent lifestyle of "take and don't give a shit."

While action is a huge part of the film, there's also so much more to focus on. The love story between Silk Spectre and Nite Owl is both relevant and sexy, made so in part because of Akerman's seductive nature and also because of the aggression of two superheroes. This tight knot between superheroes is not always there between the Watchmen, so to see two of the group having intimate relations helps to detract from the giant conflict of interest that the Watchmen face. 

Speaking of conflict, the film is brutally violent, grabbing the viewer and rendering them helpless, emphasizing how cruel our world has become. Broken bones are commonplace here, with a pretty graphic arm snap, so if you're a litte squeamish, this might be something to look out for during the film. Some of the blood is warranted, some is not - one has to give props to the fact that Watchmen had the balls to throw in the gruesome content, though, rather than give this a tame PG-13 rating. The violence is fitting, however, because of the topic of humanity's degradation. The sense of the darkness through the film needs to be contextualized, and it certainly is when we see gangs of switchblade-armed thugs get beaten to a bloody pulp.

But even if the film is decidedly dark, there's enough humor to engage the lighthearted viewer. There's definitely a constant shift between seriousness and comedy that emphasizes the snarkiness and sarcasm rampant in our world. Despite the laughter, this contributes to the black tone even more, since as we see the drastic change in tone we also feel how aloof the world has become.

The film does carry on a bit too far towards the end of the film, however, and scenes could have been cut out. At times, there's a feeling that everything is going to end, and then we go right back into something else. The length is a huge distraction, because the time flies, but not many people want to sit through a 3 hour film.

The direction by Zack Snyder is well-done, and though the slow, melancholy camera zooms and slow-mo sequences are hard to get into during the beginning, the viewer can adjust fairly easily. I thought that the slow-motion effects were going to be very corny at first, but as I slowly let myself immerse into the film's semi-surreal atmosphere, I found myself forgetting my annoyance. In the end, there are a lot of technical shots that are quite breathtaking, one in particular being a slow zoom-out that takes us through a cemetery sign. Instead of hating it, I began to like it more and more, especially with the creative approaches to camera angles.

Honestly, there's not much to criticize about the film. It may follow the comic a bit too closely, but if it didn't, the fans would be outraged. The misanthropy is almost an attack on our human race, one that we might find uncomfortable, especially in the fact that superheroes would sacrifice anyone to save the world. This is the point, though; when we think of superheroes, we think of hulking beasts who fight crime without morally thinking about the consequences or philosophizing on our existence as brutal savages, or people who care about every human being. Watchmen brings us back to reality; the people who save us, whether superheroes or police, are still only human, with their own weaknesses and biases. The film puts us in a fantasy world that is still grounded in a reality by using historical allusions and songs, which adds to this sense that, when humanity runs themselves into the ground, no one will protect us from ourselves. 

Oh, and blue penis.

Watchmen on Rotten Tomatoes

Special Movie Review - Analyze This

Analyze This

A plot line about psychiatry and the mob doesn't seem to mix at first, but with both Analyze This and The Sopranos tackling gangsters with stress, it seems a bit more probable. In fact, in most cases we don't see the stressors that come with whacking everyone and always being on the lookout for assassins and backstabbers during mob films, so it makes sense that a mobster might need a good shrink every once and a while.

Analyze This is exactly the above premise, plus a little bit of added comedy. Billy Crystal plays Dr. Ben Sobel, a psychiatrist who is currently going through a bit of a rough patch with his onslaught of depressed housewives. He is, however, getting remarried to Laura (Lisa Kudrow), a retiring news reporter. Ben Sobel unwittingly stumbles - or in his case, slams - into Paul Vitti (Robert De Niro), the head of a mob family in New York who is currently suffering from a bout of fatigue and stress. Sobel is thrown into the mobster lifestyle as Vitti takes a liking to him, proclaiming Sobel as his new psychiatrist. 

Yet the mob lifestyle isn't for Sobel, and as he vehemently tries to distance himself from the criminal activities and the danger, Vitti draws him farther in. Of course, the Feds come knocking at Sobel's door once they realize he has become an associate of Vitti's, and things escalate from there, with both Vitti and the Feds adding two different types of stressors to Sobel's life. It's up to Sobel to cure Vitti in two weeks, plus avoid being killed by the mob, the Feds, or both.

In essence, Analyze This is reminiscent of a buddy comedy, pairing two unlikely personas together in whacky situations. The film is less about the plot of the film than the character development, which is a good thing, because it takes a semi-weak plot and turns it into something much more entertaining. Robert De Niro is the obvious stand-out here, with his take on an eccentric mobster rich in subtle details. His actions are repeated and uniform, and he never feels out of place in the mob. Towards the end of the film when he takes his place at a table of mobsters, he feels powerful and dignified, a fitting aura for a mob boss. De Niro knows exactly what he's doing, and he has developed the ability to immerse himself fully in the character. It shows in Analyze This, especially in his ability to crack a corny joke and still make it successful. 

Billy Crystal is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to comparing Sobel and Vitti, and he provides a nice contrast of character. Crystal is a realistic psychiatrist, in that his ability to persuade and get to the bottom of Vitti's dark past is believable and feels true to what I know of psychiatry. It's interesting to note that Crystal plays the more serious role here and lets De Niro have most of the more humorous segments. Even with this reversal of normal roles, both actors showcase their abilities at taking on more unfamiliar territory.

Lisa Kudrow's character is seen very little, and when she is, she's less funny or sarcastic and more bitchy. It would have been better if her character was either left out of the plot or made a little more likable, because it makes the audience feel like we like Vitti more than Laura. While it's a compliment towards De Niro's character traits, it's also undesirable as it seems like the audience is supposed to want Sobel to marry Laura instead of ditching her for a better-suited woman. 

The comedy is a mixture of action-based humor, mobster parody, and character dialogue, and though the slapstick comedy is funny, the dialogues between Vitti and Sobel outshine any of the other jokes. It's the odd relationship that they build together that provides the quirkiest moments. The differences in their own lifestyles and personalities give a lot of instances where Vitti and Sobel can disagree. This escalates both the tension and comedy at the same time, and there's a sense of fear and comedic relief that lie beneath the surface of the film's plot.

While Analyze This' story works almost as a math equation (1 psychiatrist + [1 mob boss - confidence] = FUN ANTICS), not to mention one that has been done before, it still works because of the infusion of comedy and serious mob action. The film gives a nod to as many big crime movies as it does comedies, so there's something for everyone in the movie. De Niro makes it look fun to be in the mob, and although he does attempt to get out of the crime business, it still makes the audience feel like some people are just meant to be mobsters. Although there's not a lot to analyze with the film, it still presents itself admirably and garners repeated watches - if not for the flashy script, then for De Niro's performance.

Analyze This on Rotten Tomatoes

Book Review - The Rage Plague by Anthony Giangregorio

The Rage Plague

The folks at Permuted Press were kind enough to send me another review copy, this time from author Anthony Giangregorio. Permuted has such a wide range of interesting new authors that I couldn't pass up a look at another novel from their selection.

The Rage Plague is Giangregorio's attempt at a zombie novel, but the monsters in the book are only reminiscent of zombies in the way that they are enraged by a virus, causing them to want to kill (and in many cases, eat) their victims. The virus is spread through the air, but it turns out that some people can be immune, and our plot centers around a group of people who band together to try and stay alive for as long as possible. Their leader is Bill, a fifty-something man who does what he has to do to keep safe. He's gruff but a durable man, one who comes up with ideas when they're needed without much hesitation. A perfect person to lead everyone out of the carnage of Chicago, in which, at the beginning of the novel, they are stuck on top of a school roof.

It's not as easy as it sounds, though, since Chicago is infested crazies. It's not only the Changed that Bill has to worry about, though, because he soon realizes the mental strain that the whole situation has on the ones around him. They soon escape the roof, only to find themselves running from a plane about to crash. This leads them to an abandoned lab, and located behind it, a military base. Is it a godsend? Nah, because the military takes Bill and his group to an airport where they try to run some "tests" to figure out what is causing the immunity to the virus. When they say tests, they mean dissections, and Bill soon realizes that the military is just another gang that they have to stay away from. To make matters worse, there is a Changed person in Chicago who still has control over his body, and he is creating a pack of crazies to kill every normal person in the world.

It's bad news bears for our protagonists throughout the entire novel, which is a good thing, because the book is so fast-paced the reader will be flipping through pages in no time. The action barely quits, and when it does, it's mostly for some important backstory which leads us right back into the tension. The prevailing mood of desperation is evident through the whole journey and quite strong, so much so that it feels almost as if the survivors are going through so much to only end up dying anyway. For some, this might be a turn-off; they might say, "Why read the book when the inevitable will happen?" I feel, though, that the futility of the whole situation brings out the real terror in the novel, and fills the reader with a great sense of dread.

It's always hard to stay away from nods towards other zombie films, however, and The Rage Plague is reminiscent of scenes from an amalgam of movies. The school rooftop scene feels a lot like the remake of Dawn of the Dead, on top of the mall looking out at the hundreds of zombies infesting the parking lot. There's also a distinct 28 Days Later allusion, especially with the virus causing anger-like symptoms in the crazies. For Giangregorio's book, it doesn't really hinder the reading to have these images in the reader's head, but it does feel very familiar. It's not a bad thing, because Giangregorio has a lot of creative ideas that help to negate the genre cliches, but it does emphasize the fact that the use of zombies has become a loaded idea.

As I said before, Giangregorio has brought some cool ideas to the table here. One of them is having a fully conscious "zombie," which I've had the idea of for a while but haven't seen implemented. Here, the conscious zombie commands an army of the crazies against any normal human, giving us a misanthropic tone that stands out among the many other motifs. The book tackles humanity's own cruel tendencies, but this idea has been done so much that it's refreshing to see a change in themes. 

There's also a segment about building pipe bombs to use against the survivors' attackers. What an awesome idea! Use the stuff you have to build something useful instead of trying to scavenge for bullets. This gives the characters a real feeling instead of having everyone aimlessly wander around, pretending like they know what they're doing but instead internally cowering in fear. 

In fact, the characters are developed well, especially for how many there are in the narrative. Bill is obviously the most relatable, although he does have a tendency to be a dick. This is truthful, though, and I respect that. He has a smattering of good and bad inside of him, and he feels more three-dimensional because of it. The rest of the characters are significantly flatter than Bill, even the conscious Crazy, but each of them gets their own little turn at exposition. It's effective and keeps the plot moving without having to stop and develop each character fully.

One of the problems I had with the plot, though, was the fact that the conscious Crazy seems to have a bigger part in the rising action than he does at the climax. I expected that the group would have to face off with him at the conclusion of the story, but instead, each group goes their seperate ways, and Bill's group doesn't even know that this conscious Crazy exists. I felt a letdown here, because it was as if this was a huge tease.

Another thing that was cause for concern was the fact that the beginning and the end of the narrative resemble each other a lot. In both parts, Bill and the survivors are escaping from a horde of zombies on a rooftop and outrunning an explosion. The events seemed way too similar, and if they were meant to be, it didn't do anything flattering to the storyline just to hint at the desperate repetitions of their lives. I wanted to see the novel do something new at the end, rather than doubling back on itself. 

The Rage Plague is a good portion of zombie fun which doesn't do much to raise the bar for the whole genre but doesn't seem to intend to. Giangregorio throws us right into the mix and then extracts us back out, and in a way, it's very fitting with the overall tone of the book. It's a short read, but a pleasant one. It's difficult to put down, and though we never learn what happens to this group of unfortunate people, it's somehow satisfactory - maybe it's best not to know the details, good or bad, in this land where extreme measures must be taken.

Movie Review - The Orphanage

The Orphanage (AKA El Orfanato)



From the people who brought you Pan's Labyrinth! Well, sort of... You see, I was all thinking that Guillermo Del Toro, director of the aforementioned movie, had directed this film as well; I guess I missed the above poster, since it does clearly state "Guillermo Del Toro presents" and "Directed by J.A. Bayona" is right at the bottom. And what does "PRESENTS" actually mean, anyway? I guess it's not important now...

Directed by Juan Antonio Bayona, The Orphanage stars Belén Rueda as Laura, a woman who returns to the orphanage that she grew up in before she was adopted. She now has a family - a rather busy husband, Carlos (Fernando Cayo), and an adopted son, Simón (Roger Princep), who we quickly learn is HIV+. Laura and Carlos have decided to move back to the old orphanage, fixing it up and turning it into a home for special children.


There's a haunting past to the orphanage that Laura is slowly forced to uncover, however, as Simón continues to see "imaginery" children that lead him to do strange things, including a hide-and-seek game where Simón uncovers the truth about his adoption and disease. Eventually, Simón goes missing at a party, and Laura and Carlos are thrown into a missing child case. Laura has had her own strange encounters at the house, though, and thinks that ghosts are playing a game with her. As she is led further and further into the orphanage's dark past, she also slowly unravels a mystery that happened at the orphanage right after she left.

The Orphanage's plot is not a new one - in fact, it represents just about every ghost story ever put on film. All of the same elements are there: a child who can see ghosts before the adults can, check; a knowing adult who has to uncover the truth, check; ominous house with more than its fair share of secrets, check; an unbeliever, check. While the story doesn't really distinguish itself from the rest of the ghost "genre," the execution of the scares and the tension does. The fact of the matter is, the story feels very grounded in reality. Laura and Carlos seem like a promising family, trying to do a good thing by accepting special needs children into their homes, and also adopting a child that has HIV. There's a certain realism that the small tidbits about the family's life outside of the haunting provide - it gives the characters a rounded feel, one that presents a greater sense of dread after Simón goes missing.


Ultimately, the film hinges on the strength of the relationship between Simón and Laura. To believe in Laura's faith that the ghosts have stolen Simón, or even trust that Laura is not crazy herself, we must feel like the love between Simón and Laura is real. Both Rueda and Princep bring about this relationship, sharing in bonding mother-son moments that express Laura's later obsession with finding Simón. It works because of the three-dimensional characters, but I couldn't help but think something was missing with Carlos. He is barely in the film, and when he is, he seems less than enthusiastic in believing Laura.

But what is it about the horror that makes this ghost story better than most? Part of it is the slow-moving camera. Everything about the pacing of the film feels surreal and sluggish, and long camera shots give the audience the opportunity to fall victim to quick scares that pop up at the last second. There's added tension that builds with long, linear shots. When zooming in, there is only one thing on the screen to look at, but there is always that tense moment where the audience becomes so distracted by what they're looking at that they're not thinking about the next moment. It's almost always effective, even when it is done deliberately with no scare at the climax.


But there is also something very haunting about the overall tone and atmosphere of the film. A scene in which a medium is investigating the house is very afflicting; night-vision cameras are set up, and the audience only gets a view of the screen, rather than following the medium. This is more ominous than the latter idea because we don't know what to expect. All we can see is what the camera sees. The medium picks up sounds on the recorder, childrens' voices that are crying and screaming in agony. It's a seat-gripping moment for sure, and while it ends only slightly more tense than where it began, that moment of dread sticks with the viewer through the rest of the movie.

In essence, The Orphanage rarely has any "real" scares. Most of the audience's fear lies in the tension of being lost in the house with no anchor of what might happen next. It's disorienting and quite different from other horror movies that force scares on the viewer rather than lightly hinting at them. There is very little in terms of a "slap-in-the-face" moment; instead, the audience can make of the scene what they will.


The past of the orphanage is really quite depressing, and all of the plot fits into place towards the end of the film. There is a reliance on recapping clues and foreshadowing from the beginning of the film which seems somewhat Saw-esque and too narrative, but it's needed to get the whole gist of the film. The end is definitely not what one would expect, but also somewhat rewarding, and especially in Laura's case, a woman who has been in a limbo of her own as to her son's whereabouts.


The only big problem I had with the film was the fact that Laura seemed very oblivious to what the ghosts wanted from her. It was obvious from the beginning to the audience, although it took Laura about 9 months to catch on. Also, tense moments frequently ended in a less-than-climactic position, one that I thought could have really amped up the fear more. Of course, the film did not want to rely on blatant pop-up scares, but a couple of freakier scenarios could have catapulted The Orphanage ahead of its brothers and sisters.

The fact that The Orphanage gives its own brand of fairy-tale storytelling reinforces its own subject matter. The hide-and-seek game is interesting in an adventurous sort of way, although only loosely played out. Especially creative was the use of the knock-knock (red light-green light) game when Laura attempts to find her son, although I was a little disappointed when the tension disappeared.


The Orphanage takes a lot of the obvious ghostly drama from other films and reinterprets it to entertaining, scary fun. While it's not the best haunting film ever made, it does have a lot going for it - emotional trauma is more important here than, say, shock scares. The later plot is very haunting, but the happy ending leaves a warming of the heart. We know, at the end, that one of the reasons why there was such a lack of climactic scares is because the ghosts were never meant to be scary. They were there to help Laura find her son - although she's probably wishing they stopped playing the game with her and just told her where he was in the first place. In the end, everything turns out how it was meant to be, and we are both happy and sad - it's been a thrilling ride, but the darkness that used to fill the movie is gone, leaving only despondent feelings.

The Orphanage on Rotten Tomatoes