Critical End!

Some of you may recall that David Wain and I had a rather messy break-up back here. Things were said that we both regret. Luckily, we both believe in happy endings (combined with drunken one night stands), which is why I’m happy to announce that Wain and I are now back together!

In other words: Wain is not directing Little Fockers.

CHUD stole all of the really good jokes about this, so check out the full story here. Meanwhile, our next podcast should be up soon, so why not stay in this weekend and refresh this site until you see it? Just a thought…

There are a lot of bad horror movies, but because the genre is generally considered disposable, no one really remembers them. You have to be a fan of these kinds of films to have even heard of Castle Freak or the Wishmaster series. (I was going to use Deathbed there, but Patton Oswalt had to go and take that one mainstream.) Leprechaun, however, has entered into the public conscious, probably because there are, inexplicably, FIVE sequels. So if you need a quick goto example of how laughably awful horror can get, chances are you’ll reach out for Leprechaun, even though you’ve likely never seen it. Well, I am here to correct your misconception. Leprechaun is not a bad horror movie. It is a bad comedy. Which, in some ways, is worse.

The titular star is, of course, Warwick Davis of Willow and Star Wars and anything that needed a little person but couldn’t get Billy Barty. He’s a demonic leprechaun looking for his stolen bag o’ gold and taking bloody revenge on anyone in his way, including Jennifer Aniston in her film debut.

If the premise itself–a three foot guy in buckled shoes is coming to fuck your shit up–isn’t enough of a clue that this movie is in on its own joke, you will be swiftly convinced by scenes of the Leprechaun chasing our heroes on a tiny tricycle, downing a box of “Lucky Clovers” cereal, and falling for a ploy in which the gang throws dirty shoes at him which he must compulsively polish, allowing them to escape. I guess leprechauns are into shoes.

Occasionally, the shtick works. Davis, presumably cast for his stature, puts everything he’s got into the performance, tossing off Freddy Krueger style bon mots before cackling wickedly and disappearing into the shadows. Oddly, the Leprechaun does not have an Irish accent, but we’ll let that slide. The opening is played like straight horror. His first victims are terrified of him, which is what makes the scene funny, because…you know…he’s a leprechaun. But then the real protagonists show up and things get weird.

Lions and tigers and bears! Oh my!

If the film had restricted the human characters to the straight man roles, things could have worked. But instead, they’re WACKY! Early 90’s, Full House brand wacky. The major offender is Ozzie the idiot man child, played by Mark Holton, best known (by me) for his much better turns as Francis from Pee-wee’s Big Adventure and Chubby from the Teen Wolf movies. Ozzie gets into all sorts of kooky situations with his streetwise Newsies-style sidekick Alex and their beefy leader Nathan, with whom Aniston trades awkward flirty banter. And let me tell you, when Ozzie accidentally swallows one of the Leprechaun’s coins, the shenanigans and crack-em-ups really get going!

Look, movie, I kinda dug it when you were parodying high concept slasher films. But adding the Scooby-Doo crew to the mix just makes it groan-worthy. A movie about a killer cereal mascot does not need comic relief characters. By the time I got to Alex’s heartwarming yet naive plan to use the gold to pay for Ozzie’s brain surgery, I’d had about enough.

Plus the body count is disappointingly low.

Leprechaun is definitely a bad movie, but it doesn’t really take itself seriously enough for me to recommend it as cheesy late night riffing fodder. If you’re a fan of the genre, you kind of have to watch it once to see what all the fuss is about, and it’s worth it for the occasional laugh and to catch Davis in a rare starring role. But that’s about all you’ll get out of this one.

Rating:

Happy St. Pat’s Day, kids. Knock back a Shamrock Shake for me.

If Harry Potter grew up to direct genre films.

It’s been nearly a decade since The Gift, the last film Sam Raimi directed that could be called a horror movie, and I didn’t realize how much I missed him until I saw the trailer for Drag Me to Hell.

He’s obviously been jonesing to return to the over-the-top spooky stuff that started his career. See the Doc Ock surgery scene in Spider-Man 2 or the news of his involvement in the almost certainly ill-advised Evil Dead remake. But Drag Me to Hell promises to be a true return to form.

Pretty girl, gypsy curse, lots of white contact lenses. And none of these wimpy ghosts who want you to be their mom, or solve their murders, or feel guilty about the holocaust. No. There is a demon. And he will drag you. To hell.

Still not convinced?

Oh yes, kids. Justin Long is ready to make you forget about the second half of Jeepers Creepers. MTV was right to snap up that exclusive. Take a look:

Pointless side note: Hey, Universal, I’d have used your official trailer embed widget but it’s incredibly tiny and autoplays with sound. Seriously?

Anyway, who’s excited?

Pet Sematary Two is not a good movie. I doubt that’s a surprise to you since you were probably aware that its predecessor Pet Sematary is also not a good movie (despite a great, true-to-the-book performance by Fred Gwynne). I’m not here to review those movies.

Although…

Pet Sematary
Rating:

Pet Sematary Two
Rating:

Now. I want to communicate two things about Pet Sematary Two. First, it’s a movie that actively rips off other Stephen King movies. Obviously, there’s Pet Sematary, but you’ve got the coming-of-agey kid protagonists from Stand by Me, the demonic dog from Cujo, and the antagonist breaking through a door scene from The Shining. They get tantalizingly close to the end of Carrie, but cut away just in time.

Second, this movie has tons of potential as your goto Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon movie. It’s an odd little nexus of obscure actors. We’ve got Edward Furlong of T2 fame, Anthony Edwards of ER and Revenge of the Nerds, Jared Rushton the bully from Honey I Shrunk the Kids, Darlanne Fluegel the evil doctor from the third Darkman, and my personal favorite Clancy Brown whose voice I was trying to place the entire time until I looked him up and realized he was Mr. Krabs from Spongebob.

So if you’re trying to connect Rick Moranis to Schwarzenegger or George Clooney to Arnold Vosloo, there ya go.

Okay, try to stick with me on this one: Hank and Mike takes place in a world where Easter bunnies are real. No, wait. Let me clarify that: By “real” I mean guys in bunny suits. Well, not bunny “suits” so much as they are actual bunnies. That’s right. This is a world where Easter bunnies (that look like slackers in pink bunny suits) exist AND they break into your house every Easter and leave little chocolate candy eggs. That’s their job. That’s what they do and they love it. This is a serious business they run. Confused yet? I might need to make a chart or something.

Thomas Michael and Paolo Mancini (who also wrote the film) star as Hank and Mike, two Easter bunnies who find themselves out of a job when the company decides to cut back. As you know, Easter is a “second tier” holiday, and it seems that the company they work for, Easter Inc., is losing money to bigger holidays. Enter Conrad Hubriss (a very greasy and evil Chris Klein) who decides that it’s time to lay off a bunny or two. This is unheard of. What else could an Easter bunny possibly do in the workplace?

I’m sure at this point you’re thinking that all of this sounds very cute. Two lovable guys in pink bunny suits, right? How wrong you are. They drink. They get high. There are even a few bunny sex scenes thrown in for good measure. Folks, this is one crazy movie full of R rated bunny lovin’ and definitely not aimed at the wee ones.

But it’s also funny. Just as the amusement of two grown men in pink bunny suits (can not stress that enough) begins to wear thin, the movie finds funnier and funnier situations to place them in. The scenes in the unemployment office are especially hilarious. One of them also develops something of an office romance for a human girl. The movie manages to make this heartwarming and somewhat respectful. Wow. I can’t believe I just typed that.

Hot human/bunny sex aside, this movie isn’t for everybody. It’s uneven at times, milks too many laughs from the main characters debauchery, and a side plot involving corporate sponsored suicides (yes, you read that right) is no where near as funny as the movie seems to think it is.

But on the other hand, it’s a movie about guys in pink bunny suits. Have I said that yet? Well, if not, I can assure you that it’s worth seeing for that alone.

Rating:
6 out of 10

Well, it had to happen: A few days after I post on here about how super cool amazing awesome David Wain is, Hollywood had to go and kill all of my dreams yet again. It seems that his name is now attached as the possible director of the next chapter in the Meet the Parents saga, the highly groan worthy Little Fockers. Do you get the title joke yet? In case you missed it with the second sequel, Meet the Fockers, the word “Fockers” sounds a whole lot like a certain dirty word! Which one? Ass, I think.

Anyway, nothing is set in stone yet, but I was upset enough to feel the need to get the word out. For now let’s just ignore all of this and concentrate on the good Wain news of the week: Role Models is on DVD tomorrow! Hot Dog! Wain, you goofy lug! I can’t stay made at you!

Remember how they once turned Broadway musicals into movies?

Yeah, neither do I.

In related news, I’ve decided to skip seeing Bride Wars in theaters, as I’m sure I’ll be able to catch it on Broadway in a year or so.

Seconds before breaking into the hit song Your Wedding Can Suck It!

STELLA!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the actual French poster for the upcoming Wolverine. Any wacky captions you may have will be greatly appreciated.

The live blog is over, but if you missed it you can check out the snazzy replay below. Thanks to everyone who watched and posted. We had a great time and will definitely do it again next year.

If you’ve got another event that you think needs the CE! live blog treatment, feel free to post a comment.

Is it weird that among this year’s best picture directors are the guys who did Alien , Edtv, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, and 28 Days Later?

Okay, the director of The Reader doesn’t have any embarrassing IMDb credits, but ironically that’s the worst of the nominees. The best, in my opinion, is zombie aficionado Danny Boyle’s work: Slumdog Millionaire.

"You can take the Golden Globe and go home, or keep playing for the grand prize."

As I’ve indicated in my previous Oscar posts, this year’s best picture candidates are a collection of good stories elevated by outstanding performances. There is nothing intrinsically Oscar worthy about Frost/Nixon, only Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, and Sam Rockwell push it to that level. This film is the exception. While its acting is generally strong, Slumdog earns its seat at the table by just being a damn good movie.

The premise is that Jamal, a kid from India who has been poor all his life, becomes a contestant on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” The film opens as he is being tortured by police who are suspicious of his success on the show and accuse of him of cheating. To prove his innocence, he explains (through flashback) the events in his life that led to the knowledge he needed to answer each question correctly.

It’s a pretty wacky concept, which is why it’s great that it’s grounded by a strong emotional story: Jamal’s lifelong search for the girl he’s loved since childhood. This isn’t just a humorous series of vignettes from Jamal’s life that coincidentally drop the answers to trivia questions in his lap (though it’s that too), it’s the story of two people who want to be together, but are repeatedly and cruelly separated by fate. The gameshow gimmick is the framework that gets the film moving, but you’ll gradually forget about the money and become more invested in whether these kids finally find a way to be together.

It’s shockingly well-executed. The film moves like a dance, seamlessly flowing back and forth through various stages of Jamal’s life to the rhythm of an excellent score by Bollywood composer A. R. Rahman. The twists in the story are unpredictable, the characters are well-defined and memorable, and the ending is supremely satisfying

Don’t worry, I’ve got nitpicks. You’re going to have to accept the fairy tale conceit that two children can fall in love at first sight and love no one else until reuniting well into adulthood. It’s occasionally jarring the way the movie switches from fun and over the top to gritty and serious.

And for some odd reason, in this otherwise expertly edited film, the opening fifteen minutes really drags. But that’s what the gameshow thing is for, to convince you to stick with the movie long enough for it to get going. Once it does, all is forgiven.

I can’t think of a person to whom I wouldn’t recommend Slumdog Millionaire. It’s not a movie that will change your life, but it is one of the most gratifying experiences I’ve had in a movie theater for a while (not counting that thing I was arrested for). And it’s certainly my pick for best picture of 2008.

Rating:
9 out of 10

The Pre-Oscar Celebration

Earlier this week I said that Benjamin Button was a film that wanted an Oscar. If that’s true, then Milk is a film that is jonesing for one.

Milk is lying on the sidewalk, curled up in the fetal position, hoping that the Academy will pass by and drop a statue in its upturned hat.

It’s a personal story of a man who triumphs over adversity despite the prejudices of society, deeply impacts those around him, takes on the system from within, struggles to find love, and dies a martyr. Oh, and it’s about gay rights and stars Sean Fucking Penn. Scientists could not create a more formulaic Oscar grab in a lab. It’s the kind of transparent effort I really enjoy tearing apart. Unfortunately for me, Milk is, for the most part, a very good movie.

Milk is an incredible gathering of talent. I’m not much of a Sean Penn fan, but I will say that he knows how to really become his character. He portrays Harvey Milk with so much honesty, enthusiasm, and sadness, that I bought into it right away and never saw his performance falter. James Franco, who–let’s face it–is hit or miss, was excellent as Harvey’s longtime partner Scott. The most interesting of Milk’s followers was Cleve, and I spent the film trying to figure out where I knew the actor from. It’s Speed Racer. That blew me away. Call Emile Hirsch a new favorite of mine.

Brolin swoops in to steal the scene.

Finally, if Heath Ledger wasn’t such a lock for best supporting actor, I’d put my money on Josh Brolin. He has relatively few scenes, but commands every one of them with ease. I’d like to see this movie again because Brolin’s character has his own parallel movie running alongside Harvey’s that I feel I didn’t fully appreciate the first time through.

However, Milk follows the trend among this year’s best picture nominees by pairing fantastic acting with a comparatively weak plot. Not as weak as The Reader or even Frost/Nixon, but a bit stiff for my tastes. There aren’t clear story beats to latch on to. Rather than gradually building tension leading up to an important moment, the film tends to hop around from one milestone in Milk’s life to the next. You’ll only realize something was significant just after it happens. This lends to the documentary feel, but makes for a climax that comes out of nowhere, abruptly ending the film.

Still, I can’t stay mad at this movie. Milk’s story is one that deserved the cinematic treatment, not only because more people should know it, but because it makes for great entertainment. And if that means an Oscar or two goes its way, then I won’t protest.

Rating:
8 out of 10

Don't be mislead, the movie does not take place in a black featureless void.

Every once in a while, a Hollywood producer spends an evening at the theater and returns with his next film project. While the play may be great, its cinematic simulacrum is often subpar. Sometimes horrendous.

Maybe the filmmakers don’t understand what made the original work, maybe they’re just out to trade on the original’s popularity, or maybe there’s just a certain indefinable spark that only live theater can ignite.

But despite this track record, I support these adaptations. Partly because I believe that theatrical stories should be captured in a permanent medium, and partly because every once in a while, as in the case of Frost/Nixon, the result is a legitimately good film.

This is the story of British television presenter David Frost, the man who landed the first post-Watergate interview with Richard Nixon. Frost has to get something exciting and preferably incriminating out of Nixon to make the interviews a ratings success. Nixon has to appear innocent and noble to regain America’s acceptance. It’s Frost’s last chance to rejuvenate his career and Nixon’s last chance to return to the public sector. As Nixon says, only one of them can win.

And so the battle begins. And by battle I mean two guys talking to each other. Aside from a batch of added and rejiggered scenes intended to make the story more cinematic, Frost/Nixon sticks unashamedly close to its stage roots by being composed almost entirely of long conversations in hotel rooms. Very luckily for the audience, the performances are engaging enough to sustain this formula.

Michael Sheen and Frank Langella (both veterans of the stage version) are equally powerful. Sheen aptly contrasts Frost’s ever-confident exterior with his increasing desperation as arranging the interviews becomes more and more challenging. Langella does the impossible by giving us a Nixon who is sympathetic. Calculating and ruthless, yes, but not the monster that the film could have easily made him into. The supporting cast is on their game as well, especially Sam Rockwell who is absolutely exceptional as the obsessed and frustrated author who has dedicated his career to getting a public apology from the former president.

So it’s damn compelling is what I’m saying. But it’s not without its faults. The movie is pretty up front about the fact that everything is leading up to the Watergate confrontation. Starting from the first ten minutes of the film, when this becomes clear, and lasting to the final ten minutes of the film when this actually happens, you’ll be playing the waiting game.

That’s not to say the bulk of the film is boring. I really felt for David as he struggled to make the interviews a reality while his stable talkshow career was falling apart around him. I was interested in the remains of Nixon’s post-presidential career, speaking at cheap corporate events while scheming to use the Frost interview to get back on top. But I couldn’t help thinking, “Yeah, I get it, let’s get to the good stuff!” This caused the second act to drag, leaving many scenes feeling like a roadblock in my path to the payoff. When the payoff did arrive, it was spectacular. But it was also so short that I wondered if it had all been worth it.

Ultimately, it had. Frost/Nixon displays performances of a rare caliber. And the knowledge that the events (while tweaked a bit) are factual makes it all the more fascinating and satisfying to watch, even if that satisfaction is delayed.

Rating:
7 out of 10

One last thing. Ron, I’ve stuck up for you several times in the past. In fact, I came to your defense on this issue during a chat with a coworker a few weeks before seeing Frost/Nixon. But as of this film, I am finally and officially tired of Clint. It’s getting distracting.

In addition to a best picture nomination, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has also been nominated for its stunning visual effects. Since it’s up against fan favorites Iron Man and The Dark Knight, I thought it might be important to take a moment and look at what exactly makes Benjamin Button worthy of this award. Let’s start from the beginning.

When the film opens, Brad Pitt looks like this. I can understand how they made him look so old, but check out that size! What a shrimp man! Is that an Oscar for visual effects that I smell? Anyway, the film moves on and he begins to look like…

This! Oh my! Yeah, I’m starting to smell an Oscar…but wait! If he looks like this now, then that means that sexy made-to-order Brad Pitt can’t be too far behind…

And there he is! At this point in the movie, I think we should just give them the Oscar right freakin’ now. The only thing left is the final, young and dying Brad Pitt. The studio has gone to great lengths to keep this a secret, so I guess I better mark this one as a SPOILER ALERT. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button really surprised me in it’s closing minutes when Brad Pitt became…

…a buff Steve Guttenberg in a dress. If that doesn’t deserve a visual effects Oscar, I don’t know what does.

Dance off!

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button wants an Oscar. It’s a movie tailor-made for the Academy. The main character goes on a journey of self-discovery, meeting every stripe of colorful supporting character along the way, and becoming entangled in a passionate, though ultimately tragic romance. Many have called it Forrest Gump 2 and I find it hard to argue.

However, in Forrest Gump the message was: “Look at how incredibly impactful the life of one man, especially one of such inauspicious beginnings, can be on the world around him.” Whereas the much more simplistic message of Benjamin Button is: “Isn’t love both wonderful and sad? Also Brad Pitt ages backwards.”

That’s the gimmick, if you hadn’t heard. Benjamin, played by Pitt, is born a (tiny) old man and grows younger as the years go by. He falls in love with Cate Blanchett’s character Daisy when they’re young, but it takes several years for their appearances to hit equilibrium so they can start making out without nauseating the audience.

Scene by scene, the film works brilliantly. Pitt impressively portrays each stage of Benjamin’s life, from an old man with the mind of a toddler to a world-weary teenager. The makeup and cinematography are exceptional, lending to the authentic feel. And the dialogue is witty and sharp. This adds up to plenty of quirky moments in Benjamin’s story that just feel perfect.

"We're the same age...NOW!"

But when viewed as a whole, this movie is just a strung together collection of moments. There’s a lot of character exploration stuff (Benjamin’s short time in the war, Benjamin’s estranged father) that the movie wants me to believe is important, but is actually just padding, only tangentially related to the real story: the romance between Benjamin and Daisy.

And that, the actual plot, is incredibly straightforward. He loves her. She’s too young. She loves him. He’s not comfortable with it. He loves her again. She’s over him. And so on. I won’t tell you how it ends, but you’ve seen the trailer. You’ve seen other bittersweet romance movies. You already know.

Not a single thing happens in the film that can’t be predicted from the TV spots. And the most annoying part is that almost none of the story depends on its major conceit, that Benjamin ages backwards. If you were to take that element away, nothing but surface things would change. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no grand metaphor about the nature of time and its effect on human relationships here. It’s just your average love story with a goofy high concept pasted on.

Of course, it’s a pretty damned interesting high concept. I’m not denying that it draws you in, nor that Pitt is fun to watch in the role. But it’s two hours long and nothing much actually happens. F. Scott Fitzgerald knew enough to keep the source material to 32 pages. (Which, incidentally, you can read at DailyLit for free.)

This movie’s tough to rate, because it succeeds as a feelgood melodrama and its flaws weren’t severe enough to take me out of the experience. But the plot’s weak and predictable, making it more of a showcase for Pitt and Blanchett’s performances than a real story. And from an Oscar candidate I expect more.

Rating:
6 out of 10

(Editors note: Since The Reader is no longer playing in Logan’s area, we tried our best to explain the plot to him before he wrote this review. However, as soon as we mentioned that the film involved Nazis, a very excited Logan exclaimed, “I LOVE those guys!” Needless to say, all of us here at Critical End! were appalled until we realized that Logan was, in fact, confusing Nazis with kittens. We took a few moments to give Logan a brief history lesson on the Nazis and many of the terrible acts that they performed. During this time he became visibly upset and finally stormed out of the room vowing to “go all Captain America on some Nazi ass”‘. We never did get to explain The Reader to him.)

Oscar Week: The Reader (Logan’s Take)

You know what I hate? Nazis.

They’re big dumb fatty McFat fats who all have poopie pants.

That’s right. Pants full of poop.

I’m sorry to use such harsh language, but I feel very enraged in regards to this issue. In fact, if you told me that there was a Nazi out in the hall by the Pepsi machine right this very second, I would most likely go out there and kill him…in the face.

You know the only thing I hate more than Nazis? Nazi zombies.

Rating:
0 out of 10 (for Nazis)

(Editors note: Yes, we’re aware that the lowest rating on this site is usually one star out of ten, but we’re talkin’ Nazis here, kids. Oh yes, and we promise that Logan’s next review will actually be on topic. He’s been warned.)