This year kicked of with a video sent from Harry’s buddy, Quint, over in New Zealand. Quint’s been on the set of The Hobbit for the last few months and has been reporting on the filming of the future masterpieces. He did some behind the scene intros for the video and it was all a lot of fun. Then Peter Jackson called Gandalf (Ian McKellen) over because Quint was feeling pretty awful for not being at his best friend’s birthday party. Gandalf did a little hocus pocus and, after some in theatre explosions, Quint was in the audience! Gandalf leaned in to the camera and told us that he had secretly stashed a copy of the trailer in Quint’s bag just before he sent him.

WE GET TO SEE A TRAILER!?!?!

Well, first, Quint had to find a trailer bearer. You see, you don’t just walk into the Alamo projection room. A few people stood up, but it was Elijah Wood who stood up and yelled, “I will take it!” and ran up to Quint.

Wow. We’re all such freakin’ geeks, because this was awesome.

Well, they couldn’t get the trailer to work, so we had to go into the first film, but we did eventually see the trailer…three times in a row. I can’t tell you anything specific about it, but godDAMN, it looks amazing. I am hardly going to be able to wait until next December to see this movie.

The first movie that we saw was one that Harry introduced by saying that we had all probably just paid to see it very recently. He didn’t care, though, because it’s his birthday and he doesn’t care if it was just released a couple of weeks ago. The movie was pretty much about him and, as soon as he programmed it, all the rest of the programming just fell into place. Luckily, Hugo is probably my favorite movie this year.

Watching it a second time, I really noticed all of the more subtle film images throughout the entire movie. All of the clock faces and gears look like film reels and many of them make the noise of a film projector. Hugo runs around the clockworks, looking out of all of the windows as if he’s watching movies about all of the people who work at the train station. He’s a voyeur just like we all are when we watch movies.

I love this movie and it’s at least as good on a second viewing. It also helped to introduce what ended up being an underlying theme of the festival and, really, all movies: unexpected adventure.

Next up was a movie that plays a big role in Hugo.

A TRIP TO THE MOON (1902)

***** (5/5)

Directed by: Georges Méliès
Written by: Georges Méliès

Georges Melies was THE early visionary of film. Before Melies, film was a sideshow technology. Even the Lumiere Brothers had no idea that film would be a truly big deal. Melies figured out that you could actually tell a story with film.

A Trip To The Moon is Melies’ most famous film and deservedly so. It tells a simple story of a group of scientists (or wizards, depending on how you take the long beards and hats that they wear) who figure out how to go to the moon. They all climb aboard their rocket, hit the man in the moon in the eye, fight some mooninites, bring one back to Earth and are heroes. End story.

While the story was huge for its time, the sets are what amazes now. It’s all stage sets, but they still look better than a lot of CGI sets made today. Because of his background as a magician, he was the first filmmakers to use special effects on screen. His use of jump cuts to make people and objects appear, disappear and change instantly was an accidental invention, but he used it all the time to amaze his audiences.

If you have any interest in film history, A Trip To The Moon is absolutely essential to your film viewing. If you like sci-fi films, this was the first. It’s beautiful to see on the big screen. I wish it had been a tinted version (hand-tinted, of course), but it’s still a great film that should be seen by anyone with the slightest interest in film.

JUST IMAGINE (1930)

** (2/5)

Directed by: David Butler
Written by: Buddy G. DeSylva/Lew Brown/Ray Henderson

In 1930, Hollywood was looking for something new to put on the screen. Movies had just started talking fairly recently, so what could they do with this new version of the media?

Well, a sci-fi musical, of course!

That’s right, kids. This is not only Hollywood’s first sci-fi film, but it’s the first sci-fi musical!

Let’s not take that as a great thing just yet.

Basically a remake of A Trip To The Moon, Just Imagine takes place in 1980, a time far too distant for citizens of 1930 to even dream about. Cars have been replaced by airplanes, marriages have to be approved by the state (weird…we’re pretty much just starting that now), everyone has a number instead of a name and there are no people with pigment in their skin.

In other words, it’s a Republican dream!

LN-18 (a pre-Tarzan Maureen O’Sullivan) and J-21 (John Garrick) are in love. Unfortunately, another man has asked for permission to marry LN-18 and he is above J-21 on the pecking order. This, of course, means that he gets first priority. Unless, of course, J-21 can distinguish himself in the his field: aviation.

What’s a boy to do when everything’s already been done in aviation?

Luckily, esteemed scientist X-10 (Wilfred Lucas) wants to send J-21 to Mars. If he succeeds, he’ll be able to marry LN-18 and everything will be hunky dory. This can only happen, though, if he survives the trip.

Along for the fun are his best friend RT-42 (Frank Albertson) and Single-0 (El Brendel). Single-0 is a man who was somehow frozen in 1930 and is thawed out. He’s all about comic relief and has almost no bearing on the story. He just runs around with a Swedish accent (“What about yustice?!”) and does some vaguely funny Harpo Marx routines. El was a comedian at the time and this was his schtick on vaudeville. He’s kinda funny, but nothing to write home about.

Really, there’s not much to write home about for any of this movie. The sets are pretty amazing and the effects are nice. (A couple of the uncredited effects guys would go on to break down barriers with King Kong a few years later.) But that’s really it. The story is silly, the acting is stiff and the songs are kind of awful.

This isn’t an easy film to see. Amazon is out of stock and the ones that are for sale by other sellers are $999.99. Trust me. It’s not worth all that. If you really want to see the sets, check out a serial from the same time period. A lot of them were reused for…well, I can’t actually remember the serial. Apparently, it’s awesome, though. Too bad.

If you do see it, check out the strangest song of the entire movie where RT-42 and his wife sing about how they no longer kill flies because that fly might be in love with another fly. Then they save a pair of flies just so they can force them upon each other.

Um…what?

Also, there’s a jab at Henry Ford’s antisemitism. THAT is some funny stuff.

Next up was a different kind of adventure.

TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Tomas Alfredson
Written by: Bridget O’Connor/Peter Straughan
Based on book by: John le Carre

John le Carre is one of the preeminent Cold War spy novels. With books like The Spy Who Came In From The Cold (1962) and The Looking Glass War (1965), he basically invented the cerebral, inward-looking spy novel. His books aren’t about globe hopping and lady laying. His are about the inner struggles of being a spy and the inner workings of MI6 and the Circus, the upper echelon of British spies.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1974) is one of his best loved novels with his most well known creation, George Smiley. Smiley is a man whose entire life revolves around the Circus. Although he’s married, his wife is barely a character in the story…or his life, for that matter.

In the beginning of the film, Smiley (Gary Oldman) is in the middle of a forced retirement. His former boss, Control (John Hurt), calls him back into duty to find out who the mole is among his co-workers. They all seem to have different views from Control, but one of them is feeding information back to the Soviets. Who could it be? When Control dies, Smiley is basically on his own to save his country.

There’s the entire plot. Just a few lines. But, while the movie is VERY good, it’s also incredibly hard to follow at times. In fact, in my already tired state at this point in the day, I was pretty much lost by the time I got my burger. (In fact, that might have been what totally distracted me from what was truly going on. Don’t eat while watching this movie. You’ll get lost and never find your way again.) With all of the names, double-crosses and characters, it was nearly impossible to truly figure out.

This, of course, does not make this a bad film. The plot is kind of a McGuffin. We don’t necessarily care who the mole is. What we care about is seeing Smiley go through the motions of finding the mole. We care about the toll that it takes on Smiley. We care about seeing all of these characters interact together.

It also helps that Gary Oldman is at the top of his game here. Smiley is a very “normal” character and Oldman manages to make him real. There were definitely times that I forgot that this was Sid Viscous/Beethoven/Sirius Black that I was watching. His voice has a British aristocracy lilt to it that I’ve never heard from him before. His face, although not really made up, was older than ever before. And he was perfectly amazing.

The rest of the cast was just as good. Toby Jones, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch (it was nice to see Sherlock play Holmes), Ciaran Hines…all were great. Alfredon’s (Let The Right One In) direction caught all of these performances perfectly, often from a distance away…much like a spy would have.

After sitting through the two hour film, just about everyone had the same look on their face: “That was great! What happened?” Luckily, the studio knew that they had made possibly the most cerebral and complex spy film in decades, so the Alamo staff was provided with dossiers for every audience member, complete with plot points, character sketches and basically a flow chart explaining what the fuck happened.

I kind of love them for it.

This is definitely a film that warrants multiple viewings. I can’t wait to give it another shot and see if I can follow more of it. I’ll have one up on the rest of the audience with the dossier in my hand.

Hell, I actually can’t wait to read the book.

SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Written by: Michele Mulroney/Kieran Mulroney
Based on characters created by: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Sherlock Holmes has come back in a big way lately. In 2009, Guy Ritchie directed the amped up version of the world’s greatest detective to accolades and dollars. Then there was the BBC update of the original stories perfectly cast with Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman as Watson. There will also be an American version of the Holmes legend on television soon.

Now, Ritchie is back with the sequel to the film that restarted it all. This time out, Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr) and Watson (Jude Law) are on the run from Holmes’ greatest enemy, Professor James Moriarty (creepily played by Jared Harris). The two men are perfectly matched in just about every way with one exception: Moriarty is willing to kill anyone who gets in his way. Even the innocent.

Watson, of course, is about to get married when he and Holmes reconnect, so he is none too excited to get caught up in this latest adventure. The bromance is palpable and the near homosexuality of the two leads is played up even more than it is in the BBC show. “Lay with me, Watson.”

It’s been a couple of years since I’ve seen the original, so it’s hard for me to compare the two. From what I remember of it, though, I think this one is just as much fun and just as good. Yes, there are plenty of explosions and the direction is kinetic, as always. This is no sedate, Basil Rathbone film, but I think you all knew that. To say that it has a Michael Bay style is to insult the movie. It’s not dumb like a Bay movie. It’s not shit like a Bay movie. This is a Guy Ritchie film and he is getting back in our good graces by using other peoples’ characters. (His next project is The Man From U.N.C.L.E.)

Of course, this movie really has almost nothing to do with the original stories. There are things that fans will recognize, but there’s no story that I know of that follows this kind of path. (Somehow I doubt that Conan Doyle teamed the boys up with a sexy gypsy woman (Noomi Rapace) who kicks just as much ass as the two men. And I don’t think that Mycroft (Stephen Frye) was as…strange…as this version of him.)

This was an incredibly fun movie and, honestly, I can’t wait for these folks to team up again for a third film.

THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS (1946)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Robert Florey
Written by: William Fryer Harvey/Curt Siodmak/Harold Goldman (uncredited)

At one time, a man like Peter Lorre could be a huge star. With his bugged out eyes and crazy voice, you would think that he would be a hard sell. But Lorre was a movie star pretty much from the first time he stepped onto the screen in M in 1931. He has never stopped being an icon.

That’s why it was a bit surprising when Harry said that he had never played a Lorre film at BNAT. The fuck you say?

The Beast With Five Fingers was a pretty good way to start.

Lorre plays an astronomer who lives with an eccentric old pianist (Victor Francen) who has lost the use of his right side. His music has been rewritten by a cynical young man named Bruce Conrad (Robert Alda). When the old man dies leaving all of his money to his nurse (Andrea King), his descendants descend upon his house to try to make it seem like the old man was a blundering fool and that the money should come to him. Of course, Bruce and the nurse are in love.

Oh yeah…Peter Lorre. He actually plays a big role in this, although the description makes it seem like he doesn’t. He is pretty much the catalyst for the whole thing to happen. He’s incredibly protective of his books and his research and wants everyone out of the house…except for the nurse, of course. She can stay.

As time goes on, Lorre goes crazier and crazier and starts to see a disembodied hand crawling around the house and occasionally playing music. Sometimes it even kills people.

This is a great little film that, unfortunately, is hard to find outside of this sort of festival. It’s never been released on DVD and Warner has no plans of releasing it. That’s really too bad because I think the movie could find a niche audience now.

If you ever get a chance to see it, check it out.

G.I. JOE 2: RETALIATION TRAILER

Well, they got rid of Stephen Sommers, so I guess that’s a step in the right direction. But they replaced him with Jon M Chu, director of such classics as Step Up 2, Step Up 3D and Justin Beiber: Never Say Never.

Uh…what?

First off, was anyone really clamoring for this sequel? Second…shit. I don’t even know. I don’t remember anything about this trailer. Whatever. Do what you want, Hollywood. Enough stupid people will be into it.

Let’s move on.

THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Steven Moffat/Edgar Wright/Joe Cornish
Based on comics by: Herge

Tintin is one of the most popular characters in the world. Created by Georges Prosper Remi (aka Herge) in Belgium in 1929, he has become like Mickey Mouse to about 85% of the world.

So, you ask, why have you not heard of him? That’s because people in America don’t really care about what happens in any other country. Most Americans had never heard of Jackie Chan until Rumble In The Bronx in 1995. He had only been making movies for about 25 years before that, becoming the most famous man in the world. Why would we have heard of him?

I’m not saying that Americans are stupid. We’re just very insular. Many people see something foreign and they suddenly become uninterested. That really is a shame, though, because other countries make some amazing stuff.

Anyway, enough PSAs. Tintin is like a Belgian Mickey Mouse. He’s a boy reporter who was able to have 23 and a half adventures before Herge died in 1983 while writing the 24th. Sometime in the early 80s, a young director named Steven Spielberg became interested in Tintin because someone compared Raiders Of The Lost Ark to his adventures. Herge then became a fan of Spielberg saying that he was the only man who could possibly bring Tintin to life. Spielberg bought the rights in 1983 and has never let them go.

Skip ahead nearly 30 years when Spielberg goes to fellow Tintin fanatic Peter Jackson to see about using WETA to do special effects for a live action Tintin movie. Jackson says, “No! The only way to do it is motion capture and CGI!”

Agreeance!

I’ve never read a Tintin book, but I feel like I need to now that I’ve seen this movie. It follows Tintin (Jamie Bell) as he and his dog, Snowy, run amok all over the world. They meet Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), rescue him from smugglers led by Mr. Sakharine (Daniel Craig) and then search for treasure. There’s also the Inspectors Thompson (Nick Frost and Simon Pegg), two identical policemen who bumble their way through helping Tintin catch the bad guys.

And it all starts with a model ship.

This is a really fun movie with amazing animation. For just about the first time, motion capture isn’t totally creepy. I think it’s probably because they don’t try to make these characters look realistic. They look like slightly more realistic versions of the real comic book characters. (Watch for the analog drawings at the beginning of the film.) The 3D works beautifully, too. Not as essential as Hugo, but still a good addition to the film.

I think, though, that even if the animation was as creepy as Polar Express the movie would still be a lot of fun. Story and action go a long way and this one has both to spare. The action is basically non-stop, just like it would be in a comic book.

My only complaint is that maybe the story moves a bit TOO fast. I felt like we got caught up right from the start and there wasn’t enough time to really figure out what was going on who who these people really were. Then again, maybe that’s how it would be in real life. Just go, go, go and don’t stop to think.

I think I’ll have to see it one more time to really get a good feel for it. I had a lot of fun with it, but I think it may be a movie that a second viewing would give it another half star…maybe even a full one.

THE DEVIL INSIDE TRAILER

From the producer of the Paranormal Activity movies and (sigh) Insidious, this looks like Paranormal Exorcist. Lots of people (same person? not sure) getting possessed and then breaking their own backs. Oh, and found footage. Of course. We can’t make a horror movie anymore without found footage.

I dunno. Maybe I’ll check it out on video. I just don’t really want to give this guy THAT much more money.

Oh yeah, when the trailer said, “Based on a true story,” the whole audience laughed.

PORCO ROSSO (1992)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Hayao Miyazaki
Written by: Hayao Miyazaki

Hayao Miyazaki is one of the best directors alive today, live action or animation. The man is amazing. All of his films are at least entertaining on some level. There are some that I don’t like as much as others (don’t shoot me, but I’m just not that into Totoro), but they’re all great.

Porco Rosso is one that has always been on my list, but I’ve just never gotten around to checking it out. I mean, it’s about a pig who flies airplanes. Why does that sound good? Well, it has the name Miyazaki attached to it. That’s why.

Porco is the best pilot in the air just before World War II breaks out. He makes his living as a bounty hunter and rescues people from air pirates. He also happens to have had a spell put on him that turned him into a pig. This, of course, does not stop him from romancin’ the ladies. There’s one lady in particular that he’s had his eye on, but he’s constantly thwarted by Curtis, a fellow flying ace.

This was definitely a movie that I could not stay awake through just from sheer fatigue. It had nothing to do with the quality of the film because, you know, it’s Miyazaki.

Here’s the deal, though. This is Harry’s favorite Miyazaki film. He dressed as Porco for Halloween this year and just loves the shit out of this movie.

I don’t think it’s going to be one of my favorites. I just couldn’t quite connect with it like I did something like Princess Mononoke or Castle In The Sky. It’s a good film (note the four stars), but I don’t think it’s Miyazaki’s best. I will, however, give it another shot sometime.

CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012)

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: Drew Goddard
Written by: Joss Whedon/Drew Goddard

Joss Whedon did a LOT for the horror genre when he created Buffy The Vampire Slayer. It’s a real turning point for horror if only for the girl-centric plot of the whole thing.

Unfortunately, he’s also inspired a lot of rather uninspired clones over the years.

Cabin In The Woods is his way of knocking all of them down a peg or two…even if that’s not what he says it is.

I’m not allowed to do a detailed review here, but I can tell you that this movie kicked my ass. It’s so freakin’ smart, funny and full of turns that you don’t quite expect that it’s hard not to fall in love with it. It takes every trope of horror movies and turns them on their inverted ears in a way the Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson couldn’t quite bring themselves to do with Scream.

It’s been a long and winding road for this movie (it was filmed a few years ago, I think), but it’s finally coming out and I hope that it endears itself to lots of fans. It deserves it.

GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE (2012)

** (2/5)

Directed by: Mark Neveldine/Brian Taylor
Written by: Scott M. Gimple/Seth Hoffman/David S. Goyer
Based on comics by: Roy Thomas/Gary Friedrich/Mike Ploog

When Harry announced this one, I think most of the audience groaned a little bit. Seriously? Ghost Rider 2? Why would we want to see a sequel to that shitty movie?

Actually, he had the same reaction when Columbia asked if he wanted to screen it at BNAT. He said, “I need to see it.” He did and he thought it was completely different from the first one and kinda loved it.

Again, I’m not allowed to write a detailed review…but I’m not really sure that I could even if I wanted to. I not only couldn’t stay awake through it, I wasn’t interested enough to stay awake. Sure, Nicolas Cage is in Bad Lieutenant mode here, so he’s a lot of fun to watch while he goes through his weird faces and crazy voices. That, unfortunately, doesn’t make the movie particularly good. It’s good enough to be better than the first, but that’s not saying much. Really, only the kinetic direction (from the guys who brought us the Crank saga…they do know how to get into the middle of the action) and Nic’s craziness keeps it from being the worst movie at BNAT this year.

THE GREY (2012)

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: Joe Carnahan
Written by: Joe Carnahan/Ian Mackenzie Jeffers
Based on short story by: Ian Mackenzie Jeffers

Joe Carnahan is one of those directors that everyone just kind of lost faith in. When Narc came out in 2002, everyone thought that the 70s cop drama was coming back. It was a great story of dirty cops in a dirty world.

Then things started going slightly awry. Smokin’ Aces came out and no one but me liked it at all. No, I didn’t think that it was a great film, but I thought that it was fun. I was all alone. Then came The A-Team.

Done with that.

I really hope that The Grey changes peoples’ minds again. It’s the story of Liam Neeson vs. very large wolves.

Ok, it’s more than that. Liam and his co-workers go down in a plane crash in the snows of Alaska. Only seven of them survive. He is the wolf expert, so he becomes the de-facto leader, even if some of them aren’t so happy with that “decision.” The wolves pick the men off one by one as Liam becomes more and more of a badass and, actually, more full of regret and pathos. His mind is constantly on his wife back home. What happened to make him put his shotgun in his mouth just before he got on the plane?

No action movie is this, though. This is a dark action drama where the men are worse enemies to themselves than the wolves are. The infighting is believable and sometimes hard to watch. Even without the infighting, though, nature is stronger than man. This film never lets us forget that. Never…

This is a great film and I really hope that it brings Joe back in favor. He has pulled a performance out of Neeson that very well could be award caliber. Liam is one of my favorite actors currently working and I love that he’s become a thinking man of action. This is one of his best performances.

After this flick, we all piled onto buses and headed for the IMAX theatre down the road.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Brad Bird
Written by: Josh Appelbaum/André Nemec
Based on television show created by: Bruce Geller

Why the fuck can’t I dislike Tom Cruise movies anymore? Why the fuck does he keep making good movies while he, personally, still sucks?

Sigh. Whatever. The Mission: Impossible franchise has become his goto to make more money and, actually…they’ve become pretty goddamn great. After the mediocrity of the first and outright badness of the second, the third was awesome and the fourth is at least its equal. This has become the director’s franchise that Tarantino has always wanted the Bond series to become.

This time out, the IMF have been disbanded because the American government think that they have gone rogue. They were framed by a mysterious man (Michael Nyqvist, the original Mikael Blomkvist in the Swedish Girl Who… trilogy) who wants to start a nuclear war between Russia and the US. In fact, he has made tension run higher than it has since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

After the Secretary (Tom Wilkinson) is killed, Ethan Hunt (Cruise) is forced to go underground with his crew (Paula Patton and Simon Pegg) and the Secretary’s adviser (Jeremy Renner). The four of them become a well-oiled machine…even if their machines aren’t so well-oiled. In fact, that’s kind of a running joke in the film. None of their equipment seems to work quite right.

Funnier than the last film which, if I remember correctly, was a bit dour, Ghost Protocol is non-stop action and a LOT of fun. I’m not sure what made JJ Abrams and Tom Cruise entrust animation/Pixar director Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, Ratatouille) with their baby, allowing him to cut his live-action teeth on the fourth installment, but it looks like their gamble paid off in spades. He handles the job like a pro and I hope it leads to more action flicks like this: fun, thoughtful and full of actual story.

A lot has been said about Jeremy Renner being a possible replacement for Tom if he ever decides to leave the series. They’ve been denying it, but I would be up for it. Sure, I don’t think Tom is going to leave his cash cow anytime soon. But if he does, they could do worse than Renner. He’s a really good actor and handles the action very well. Honestly, if this was Cruise’s last M:I film, I wouldn’t be sad. Brandt is a good character and could totally hold the franchise up.

By the way, I would totally buy this Saul Bass inspired poster. Why have I never seen it before? One of the best posters I’ve seen in a while.

So, that was it. One of the better lineups for BNAT, I think. Only two movies that really weren’t up to par, but they even had their place in keeping the flow. (Without Ghost Rider 2, when would I have slept?!)

Another Butt Numb-A-Thon down. I’m already ready for next year.

The really weird thing about this year is that there don’t seem to be any big premieres. There are only two Secret Screenings (that I won’t get in) and those could be Robo Geisha 2 or something. Eff that.

It could be because Tim League has other things on his mind…like his brand new twins. (Congrats, Tim!) He said that he was taking the festival in a new direction because of the twins…a more family friendly direction. He even had Elijah Wood get on stage with him to do the “dancey-dance” that Elijah taught the Yo Gabba-Gabba creatures how to do!

When the exploding heads and porn started to get intercut into the footage of the dancey-dance…well, we all knew that Tim was lying all along.

Ok. Enough of this bullshit. Let’s get to those movies!

Michael (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Markus Schleinzer
Written by: Markus Schleinzer

Sometimes, a normal guy is not a normal guy. Michael (Anthony Edwards/Tony Hale mix, Michael Fuith) gets home from work after a quick trip to the grocery store and goes about his boring, normal life. It all looks like something we don’t care about until he opens his sound-proofed basement door.

What the fuck?

Turns out, Michael is a small boy named Wolfgang (David Rauchenberger) imprisoned in his basement. Sure, they go out to petting zoos and have Christmas, but there’s something MUCH darker going on here.

This movie is creepy, disgusting and, against all odds, funny. It’s not graphic by any means. All we ever see is a door closing…but we know what’s going on. Unfortunately. And, somehow, Schleinzer is able to make us laugh occasionally. I saw the movie and I’m not exactly sure how he managed it. The situation is never made fun of, but that situation is treated in such a mundane way by its participants that it’s hard not to laugh. “Sonny” may never sound the same to me again.

As time goes on, we keep wondering how the kid is going to get the best of Michael…or will he. David is actually completely amazing. He’s accepted his fate as this guy’s “son”/sex toy, but he still has a lot of fight left in him.

The movie shouldn’t have been as good as it was, but from the rather work-a-day beginning to the “What the fuck?” ending and through all of the jump cuts and long, drawn out shots, it kept me completely enthralled.

Michael certainly isn’t for everyone, but it is a great movie that, hopefully, will get some sort of release here in the States.

Haunters (2010)

*** (3/5)

Directed by: Min-suk Kim
Written by: Min-suk Kim

In 1991, a little boy makes a decision that changes his life. Both of his parents want to kill him…so he kills one of them and nearly kills the other. But he doesn’t do it with his own hands…he does it with theirs.

Fast forward to 2010 and that little boy has grown into a young man named Cho-in (Dong-won Kang) who uses his superpower to steal money. Another young man, Kyu-nam (Soo Go), has no powers…so he’s a loser. Funny thing is, he can’t be controlled by the other guy. The two face off in increasingly more bloody battles that end in death and destruction.

And it’s a comedy!

Not a bad little movie that pretty much turns into a superhero movie. It’s pretty fuckin’ silly at times, though. (The hero’s two buddies are pure comic relief. Of course, he pretty much is, too.)

By the end of the movie, as much as I liked it, I was ready for it to end. Kyu-nam had taken more abuse than is humanly possible and I was just tired of the villain. He was pretty cool, but relentless in his illogical obsession. He didn’t seem to be fighting for anything…just fighting. And he never escalated his attacks. He had all this power to control multiple people. Instead of having them attack Kyu-nam in new and interesting ways, he just has them stand between him and Kyu-nam.

Seriously.

Check it out if you like Korean films and have a little time. Otherwise, you’re probably ok to skip it and not kill yourself.

Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence

*½ (1.5/5)

Directed by: Tom Six
Written by: Tom Six

A couple of years ago, Danish director Tom Six brought a truly depraved movie to Austin for Fantastic Fest. The Human Centipede became a bit of a sensation…even though it wasn’t quite as bad as everyone thought it was. It certainly helped that it was a pretty decent movie. I kinda loved it.

When I heard that he was making another one, I was all over it. I knew it was going to be great.

Um…goddamn it.

Martin (Laurence R Harvey, not to be confused with the REAL Laurence Harvey) is a young man with MANY problems. First off, he’s mentally retarded. Second, he has a bitch of a mother. Third, he was molested by his father. (His mother blames him.) Fourth, he’s become obsessed with a film called The Human Centipede.

Yes, in this movie, the first movie was, in fact, a movie. Martin, though, seems to think it was a documentary. He wants to make his own centipede. He’s gonna do Dr. Heiter one better, though. Actually nine better.

Martin starts to bean random people over the head and takes them to an old warehouse with bad wiring. Amongst all of the screaming and crying, there’s also a lot of bleeding and pooping. Luckily, the movie is in really stark black and white, else it would have been even worse.

And it was bloody awful. Tom Six just took a whole bunch of gross and depraved ideas and strung them all together into a heavily Eraserhead influenced and LOUD film. The sound mix was so fucking loud and screechy that I wanted to tear my ears off.

Man, I wanted to like this movie. Unfortunately, I just couldn’t. I’m all for depraved, but this was just depraved for depraved’s sake. The only redeeming quality was Harvey’s performance. He was pretty amazing in what was basically a wordless role.

Skip, skip, skip this movie, though. There is absolutely no reason to watch it. Stick to the first one.

Tom said that he has a third movie already in the works. I’m actually afraid now.

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: David Yates
Written by: Steve Kloves
Based on book by: JK Rowling

After more than 10 years, the epic is over. Will we all survive? Let’s find out.

But first:

SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS–Hopefully, this is better than the sequel to Robert Downey, Jr’s other franchise…although I liked Iron Man 2 ok. Not great, but fun. How will Holmes and Watson fair the second time out? Not sure, but the trailer looks pretty good…except I think putting Holmes in a dress and makeup is probably not much more than a gimmick. Whatever. I’m all there.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES–I am SO there for this one! I really wish that it wasn’t the last one, but I guess all good things and all that. Christopher Nolan can do no wrong right now and the Batman movies just keep getting better. I can’t wait and neither can anyone who was in this audience. “OHGODIHAVETOWAITUNTILNEXTSUMMER!!!!”

COWBOYS AND ALIENS–Still can’t wait for this one, either. Let’s hope it lives up to the unfinished first half hour that I saw at BNAT in December. Looks like it will, but there’s really no telling. Such a silly concept can go HORRIBLY wrong. We can only hope.

RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES–Speaking of silly concepts that can go horribly wrong…too many prepositions can ruin any title. Against my better judgement, though, I kinda want to see this. The remake that this is a prequel to was SO awful, but this might have a better chance. Again, we can only hope.

I think that was all of the trailers. Now, let’s get to the magical body count.

A little over 10 years ago, we all fell in love with the story of a boy wizard (Daniel Radcliffe) who was destined to be The Chosen One. His story started when he turned 11 and found out that he was a wizard whose parents had been killed by an evil wizard. Somehow he survived with only a scar on his forehead.

Now, seven years later (in his years) Harry’s on the run to find the seven places that Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has split his soul into. (For the laymen, they’re in valuable objects called Horcruxes.) If they can be destroyed, the whole thing is over and Voldemort can be killed. If not, then all is lost.

In the last movie Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) basically walked and camped for months on end…I can only imagine how long it actually was for the characters. Just like the book, the first half of this epic is pretty much like The Two Towers…lots and lots of walking, talking and in-fighting. Somehow, though, director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves managed to make it pretty enthralling. Watching the first part again, it’s hard to imagine anything getting cut out. At nearly two and a half hours, there’s really no chafe.

The second part is a much tighter two hours and ten minutes, but still retains its epic scope. (I actually thought it was quite a bit longer. In this case, that’s not an insult.) As opposed to the slowness (and nearly 70s style filmmaking and grit) this movie is pretty much pure action from beginning to end. He has three more Horcruxes to find and not much time to find them.

At the beginning of the film, Hogwarts is under the iron thumb of Snape (Alan Rickman doing some of his best acting of the entire series) and, for the first time, the typically warm and inviting castle is oppressive and overbearing. Voldemort has taken over the Ministry of Magic and everything looks like it might be over.

One thing that I guess I never really noticed about this part of the story is that it’s really about two things: symbols and hero worship. You see, Harry is a symbol of hope to everyone fighting Voldemort. When it looks like he’s lost, just about everyone thinks that it’s over. (The subtitle of this movie should have been Goddam, Neville Is A Badass.) They worship Harry like something that he really isn’t. He is the hero of the story, but he’s not the only one who can win the battle.

And who does Harry worship? Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), Hogwarts’ fallen head master. When Snape kills him near the end of the sixth film, Harry thinks that he can’t go on. Of course, he finds out very quickly that he can. But he also starts to learn things about Dumbledore that make him more human…and flawed. Did we know that Dumbledore had a brother (Ciaran Hinds)? Did we know that he had family issues? Neither did Harry.

It’s amazing what lessons you can learn from fantasy. Even good folks have some pretty deep flaws.

There really isn’t a lot wrong with this movie, whether you think of it as the second part or as one long, nearly five hour film. It’s everything that, after 10 years, we were all hoping that it would be. It takes Harry and his friends to the depths of despair and helps them rise above everything to become the heroes that we know that they can become.

And, yes, the epilogue is a little bit silly…but really only because we KNOW that it’s CGI and we KNOW that these actors aren’t that old. If you don’t think about that, it works pretty well.

But Ron still looks like Simon Pegg.

If you have any love for Harry Potter and his world at all, you’re going to see this movie. You’ll see it and you’ll marvel at how much these kids have grown up right before our eyes. You’ll also marvel at how well the movie lives up to its potential and puts us all right where we want to be for the final chapter of one of the more fascinating stories of the young 21st century.

Now I kind of want to revisit the whole story.

Dammit.

Written by: Patrick Rothfuss

A few years ago, I read a new book by a young author named Patrick Rothfuss. I really had no reason to read the book, but I had read a review that said that it could end up being the “next Harry Potter.” At that time, for some reason, that got me to read it.

Luckily, while I don’t really agree with that review, I ended up really liking the book a lot. The only thing that it has in common with Jo Rowling’s creation is that it’s a fantasy about an orphaned boy growing up in a school. There, the comparison pretty much ends. The Kingkiller Chronicle is gearing up to be a MUCH more adult adventure, complete with lots more sex than I thought this series would conjure up.

When last we left young Kvothe, he was still just barely getting by, but things are going ok for him. He’s still looking for a patron for his music. He’s doing well in school, but can barely make tuition and still live throughout the term. He still owes money to Devi and he’s still running after Denna, but just barely finding her.
First and foremost, though, Kvothe is a storyteller. Whether it’s with music or without, he tells and collects stories with the best of them. That is, after all, what these books are truly about.

This time out, Rothfuss is almost a bit kinder to Kvothe. Yes, he still has hard times, but the end of those hard times always seems just around the corner. The man who should be his patron sends him to an old friend who could become an actual patron. It means that he will have to miss some school, but that’s fine as some things have just gone sour there.

This second volume, while still being as much about storytelling as the first one, is even more about traveling and how it can change you. Kvothe travels all over the fictional map that Rothfuss has set up for us. He meets people and creatures that were mentioned in passing in the first book and, in many cases, has sex with them.

Yes, there is quite a bit of sex in the second half of this book. Throughout this part I kept thinking about how they could make a movie of this book and still make it ok for kids. I think that’s pretty much gone out the window at this point. Kvothe, while not exactly a ladies’ man, certainly puts his equipment to use and, in fact, there is a lot of casual nudity mentioned in the book. (The Adem have no use for modesty…or, it seems, the facts behind pregnancy. Maybe a commentary on the current Planned Parenthood debate?)

Rothfuss continues to spin a damn good yarn, both in and out of the main storyline. Kvothe is an incredibly interesting character and, luckily, he is surrounded with his equals. There doesn’t seem to be a weak character in the cast. I still want him to find the right formula for Denna’s love, even though I know he’s alone when he’s telling his story to Chronicler and Bast. I still want him to beat the snot out of his nemeses. And I’m still shocked when things don’t go his way in a fight in the framing story. (Rothfuss constantly plays with our expectations there.)

Even at nearly a thousand pages, I wanted the story of Kvothe and his world to keep going. I can’t wait for the third book to come out, but I know it’s going to be a long wait. This one took about three years. When and how long will the “third day” be? He’s got a lot to clean up and cover. Hell, he’s still only 17 at the end of this book!

I’m very glad that I happened on The Name Of The Wind three years ago and that it stayed in my mind until The Wise Man’s Fear came out earlier this year. Hopefully, these books will pick up some steam and get some more readers.

Because we’re awesome. That’s why.

Harry Knowles birthday, while a normal day for most folks, is a special day for around 200 of us in Austin (and, actually, some from around the world). Even if we don’t know Harry all that well, we still get to bask in the warm glow of films that he and his closest friends have chosen to show on the Alamo screens.

This year, the festivities started with the usual ridiculing of Jeff Mahler. This time, though, they had fucked up the only known print of Teen Wolf so often that it was no longer usable. Instead, they had a stuttering insult comic come out and do about 20 minutes about how lame Jeff is. Then he started on Harry’s dad. Maybe he crossed the line. Not sure. Harry was certainly enjoying it. Jay was a bit more stoic.

But after that, it was off to the races.

TRUE GRIT (2010)

***** (5/5)

Directed by: Joel Coen/Ethan Coen
Written by: Joel Coen/Ethan Coen
Based on book by: Charles Portis

How could they remake True Grit, that classic John Wayne western of the late 60s?

Well, first they got two of the greatest directors of our time. Then they got one of the best actors around to replace The Duke. Then they surrounded him with other great actors.

And that, my friends, is how they may have possibly bettered a classic.

Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) is a worn out old US Marshal whose only real goal lately is to find his next bottle of bourbon. Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld in a star-making performance) is trying to find the man who killed her father. His name is Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) and he is on the run with Ned Pepper’s gang (Barry Pepper).

Once Mattie gets Rooster to actually disembark from his tiny apartment behind the Chinese grocery, they meet up with a Texas Ranger named LaBoeuf (Matt Damon). LaBoeuf is kind of a goofball who takes himself far too seriously and is much greener than he wants to let on.

These characters have already been ingrained into our brains when they were played by John Wayne, Glen Campbell and Robert Duvall. How do the younguns stack up?

Not too badly, actually. Jeff Bridges is an amazing actor and chooses to not just do a Duke impression. He makes the character his own and actually makes him quite a bit darker than Wayne ever could have. Better than Wayne’s Oscar-winning role? Meh. Just different. Matt Damon plays LaBoeuf completely differently from Glen Campbell’s performance. Matt’s version is a lot more of a fuck-up. He’s from Texas and wants everyone to know it. When he gets made fun of…well, he just doesn’t really get it. He knows he’s being made fun of, but not exactly how or why. Barry Pepper and Josh Brolin are really barely in the movie, but they do well with what they have.

The real revelation is Hailee Steinfeld. She handles Portis’ Runyonesque dialogue like a champ and is so much better than Kim Darby was that it’s easy to forget that anyone else ever played the role. While that’s not difficult, Hailee did a great job.

As much as a lot of people think that it’s sacrilege to even think of remaking a John Wayne film, especially one as iconic as True Grit, I think it’s ok…as long as the people involved actually care. If this had been made by Michael Bay, I would have scoffed and been on my way. But the Coens really do care about film. They have taken a film that is beloved by all and made it even better than it was before, as impossible as that may seem. There really isn’t a bad note in the film. I kinda can’t wait to stick a copy right next to my copy of the original.

LE SAMOURAI (1967)

***** (5/5)

Directed by: Jean-Pierre Melville
Written by: Jean-Pierre Melville/Georges Pellegrin
Based on book by: Joan McLeod (uncredited)

I’ve never actually seen any of Melville’s films…I know. Film geek sacrilege! But, whatever. You’ve never seen the glory of a Fulci film, so shut up.

My initiation into the world of Melville (sans whales) was a pretty amazing one.

Le Samourai is the story of Jef Costello (French bad-ass, Alain Delon), a hitman whose latest job went a little awry. He was caught and put in a line-up. After getting out of that (just barely) the guy who hired him tried to kill him.

Before Leon, The Professional. Before any of the other films that show us how lonely a hitman can really be, Le Samourai took us into that world and made it come to mundane life. (Just like Leon, Jef has something that he cares for more than anything else in this dark and dirty world. Here, though, it’s a bird.)

Much better than I thought it would be after all of they hype, this is a French film that I could probably watch over and over again. It was absolutely the classic that it’s cracked up to be.

ON THE TOWN (1949)

***½ (3.5/5)

Directed by: Stanley Donen/Gene Kelly
Written by: Adolph Green/Betty Comden
Based on stage play and idea by: Adolph Green/Betty Comden/Jerome Robbins

Speaking of not living up to the hype. On The Town is one of those musicals that changed everything. It’s kind of a go-to movie for musical lovers everywhere. How do you go wrong with Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly wooing girls in New York City?

Well, you give them second rate songs that are only nearly fun to listen to. With songs like “Come Up To My Place and “Prehistoric Man,” it’s a wonder that anyone remembers this movie. There are a few good songs (“New York, New York” and “You’re Awful” are absolute classics that Frank sang on more than one occasion), but I didn’t like a lot of the songs very much at all. It’s hard to believe that these are Leonard Bernstein tunes!

The story follows three Navy boys (Sinatra, Kelly and Jules Munshin) on shore leave for one day in New York City. They run around, see the sites and, of course, chase girls. Kelly, in particular, is after one specific girl: Miss Turnstiles (Vera-Ellen). The other two end up chasing after Ann Miller and Betty Garrett.

It’s good to see Frank and Gene together, of course. Those two guys could make any lump of coal into a diamond. And they do make this a very fun movie. I just wish that it had lived up to its reputation. The only thing that I can really recommend it for is the location shooting in NYC. It was the first film shot in NYC since the studios moved to California about two or three decades before. Donen had to beg MGM to let him shoot it there. And beautifully shot, it is. If you’re into NYC, this is a movie for you.

If only the music hadn’t been so bad in places.

This is where things get a little bit dicey for BNAT12. Not that it got bad. No, no, no. Not at all. But there were a couple of things that we saw that we aren’t allowed to talk about in full. Here’s the first one:

COWBOYS & ALIENS CLIP (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Jon Favreau
Written by: Roberto Orci/Alex Kurtzman/Damon Lindelof
Based on comic by: Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

Jon Favreau, producer Ron Howard (!) and writer/producer Roberto Orci joined us for a few minutes to show us 40 minutes of the unfinished Cowboys & Aliens. It was so unfinished that there was still rigging equipment in the background and attached to actors.

Unfortunately, what this means is that I’m not allowed to do a full review of what I saw. All I can say is that it looked like a LOT of fun and maybe a bit darker than I thought it was going to be. This is definitely more Firefly territory than some kind of cartoony “Golly! Look in the sky!” kinda thing.

Anyway, at some point there will be a full review…probably when I see the actual movie. Until then, this review will go unmarked in Movieola. There will be a couple more like that for the day.

RANGO CLIP (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Written by: James Ward Byrkit/Gore Verbinski/John Logan

Between making movies about pirates, Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp decided to make a quick foray into animation. (It seems that a lot of name directors are doing that lately: see Zack Snyder and Legend Of The Guardians.)

Rango is a chameleon with delusions of grandeur…at least, after people press him for a story. Suddenly, this meek little guy becomes the guy who killed seven brothers with one bullet!

The 8-minute clip that we saw was basically the origin story for Rango and it reeled me right in. I was ready to see the whole thing. The world that Verbinski and his CGI crew created was intricate and pretty amazing. (The Pepto bottle used as an outhouse was a special piece of set design.) The writing and the voice acting made the whole thing really come together. Johnny sort of sounded like he was channeling Hunter for a moment.

This is the first CGI feature for ILM and it looks like, while they aren’t on the level of Pixar, they could get there if they play their cards right.

SANTA FE TRAIL (1940)

*** (3/5)

Directed by: Michael Curtiz
Written by: Robert Buckner

As you probably remember from my review of Gone With The Wind, I thought that movie was very well made, but a bit morally not quite on the up and up. It sort of treated slavery as “the way things are” and not as bad as it really was. (Not to mention that Scarlett was a complete bitch.)

Well, take those feelings and amp ‘em up a couple of notches for Santa Fe Trail, made just a year later with one of the earlier film’s stars.

Here’s the story of George Custer (Ronald Reagan, who was a much better actor than president…but that’s not sayin’ much) and his friendship with Jeb Stuart (Errol Flynn). Jeb and George are after the same girl, Kit Carson Holliday (Olivia de Havilland), but Jeb is easily beating George to that punch. (Of course, he is. He’s fucking Errol Flynn!)

Meanwhile, in another stretch of history, John Brown (Raymond Massey actin’ up a storm) is going quietly insane while trying to single handedly end slavery in the South. According to this movie (and most history books) Brown was a madman who, while having good intentions, did all the wrong things. He slaughters men, women and children, cleaving heads in twain with a broadsword and has a super crazy beard. He started the Civil War!

Wait…what? Let’s take a step back.

John Brown has been vilified long enough. The man SHOULD be a hero. The violence that he rained down on Pottawatomie Creek was in retaliation for a raid of Lawrence, Kansas by pro-slavery folks. That started a legacy of violence for the Brown family that has never abated. With no mention of the Lawrence killings and paintings of “crazy John Brown,” history books have painted him as a terrorist and a bad, bad man.

Not only did they portray John Brown as a horrible man (albeit with good intentions) in the film, but there is a scene where a black couple talk about how all they want to do is go back to Texas and be slaves because freedom wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

WHAT THE FUCK?!?! This was 1940!!! Not 1840. 1940.

All of this makes me want to see Seven Angry Men, the 1955 film where Massey played Brown as a much more sympathetic character. You got that one, Harry?

The movie itself was alright, although Kit Carson was written as being alternately tomboyish and just dumb as a sack of hammers. It was fun to see Flynn and Reagan verbally sparing to win her attention and I guess there was some good action, although I’ve never been one for the “Cavalry Western.” That’s why I dig on Clint Eastwood more than John Wayne.

Not really a bad film, but certainly not up to Curtiz’s standards that he set with Flynn in The Adventures Of Robin Hood or would shoot past with Casablanca two years later. The man is one of the under appreciated classic Hollywood directors. I wouldn’t start with Santa Fe Trail, though. This was probably the least of the movies that we saw at BNAT this year.

THE FIGHTER (2010)

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: David O Russell
Written by: Scott Silver/Paul Tamasy/Eric Johnson/Keith Dorrington

In South Boston (Lowell, to be exact) there aren’t really many chances to get out. You pretty much have to fight your way out. And that’s just what Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and Dicky Ecklund (Christian Bale) tried to do. Unfortunately for Dicky, after he knocked out Sugar Ray his life went to shit and he got hooked on crack. Unfortunately for Mickey, Dicky is his older brother and trainer. Their mom (Melissa Leo) is his manager. Dicky, you can tell, wants the best for his little brother. He just doesn’t really know how to get him there. Mom, on the other hand, I was never so sure about.

Family means different things to different people and to these two brothers it means a lot. Mickey has plenty of opportunities to dump Dicky and his mom and actually move on with his boxing career, but he doesn’t do it. Why, even though they can be pretty selfish and a bit abusive at times? Because family is all he’s got. If you turn your back on the family, then you’re no good.

Enter Charlene (Amy Adams). She tries to turn Mickey’s life around, much to the chagrin of his family.

All of this is caught on film by a camera crew filming Dicky’s life as it goes further into the toilet. Are they really doing a documentary about his “comeback”? Or is it something darker that they’re after?

Based on a true story, The Fighter could be one of the best films of the year. It certainly has one of the best performances (possibly even one of the best of the decade) in Christian Bale. His portrayal of Dicky is heartbreaking and manic, often in the same shot. This guy is amazing.

By the end of the movie, I kind of got a sense of where the anger comes from in South Boston. Southies have it pretty hard and their families can really fuck them up. Even with the best intentions, the worst can come out.

THOR TRAILER

Even after seeing this expanded trailer I’m not really sure what to think of this movie. It looks like it could be alright, but then it looks like it could be the dumbest super hero movie ever…and there have been some DUMB super hero movies. Ever see Daredevil? Or Ghost Rider? Yeah. This could be THAT bad.

Good cast, though, and the poster that the guys from Marvel gave to Harry was pretty badass. Only members of the cast and crew and Harry have them. It was the Hammer made out of shots from the comic books. I forget who they said designed it, but I want him designing my posters. Not that I’m making movies. Just posters of my life.

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939)

***** (5/5)

Directed by: William Dieterie
Written by: Sonya Levien/Bruno Frank
Based on book by: Victor Hugo

When the great monsters are discussed, Charles Laughton’s portrayal of the Notre Dame bell ringer, Quasimodo, is always brought up. Here’s the deal, though: Quasimodo is not a monster. He’s just a disfigured and deaf dude who actually only has good intentions at heart.

This adaptation of Victor Hugo’s novel centers on the relationship between Gypsy girl Esmeralda (Maureen O’Hara) and four men. One is a young soldier named Phoebus (Alan Marshal). She falls for him hook, line and sinker, but there really doesn’t seem to be much there in the way of character.

Then there’s Gringoire (Edmond O’Brien). He’s a poet, so he’s considered part of the lower class. He falls in with the thieves, but never loses his love for the dancing Esmeralda. She marries him at one point only to save him from the knives of the thieves, never expecting love to enter into this rather quick and probably unofficial marriage.

The third is the most powerful man in Notre Dame, Frollo (Cedric Hardwicke). He has hate in his heart for everything that gets in the way of him and Esmeralda. He kills Phoebus and, when Esmeralda doesn’t return his love, he allows her to be blamed for it. He’s a high member of the church and intensely believes that “the people” should not be allowed to read the Bible. In the first scene, the King of France (Harry Davenport) sees the Guttenburg Press as an amazing piece of machinery that will take the world into its next phase. Frollo sees it as the Devil’s work and wants it destroyed.

Of course, the fourth man is Quasimodo, who has nothing but love in his heart for all things, unless they want to harm someone else…or his beloved bells.

I was surprised at how political this movie was! I’ve never read the novel, but I’m sure it’s even more political. Dieterie and his writers managed to pile a lot of it in, though, along with a healthy mistrust of the church. (Although the King was the coolest character in the entire movie. That was kinda strange to me.)

I can also imagine that the makeup on Laughton (which was amazing) was pretty shocking at the time. RKO kept it under wraps until the movie premiered. No one saw it who was off the set. No pictures were taken (at least none that were released at the time) and none of the posters showed him in full makeup, only in shadows. There’s no WAY we could do that now. Too many internet creeps out there.

The Hunchback Of Notre Dame was an amazing and beautiful film. I can’t believe it took me this long to see it, but I’m glad that I got to see it on the big screen.

CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT (1965)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Orson Welles
Written by: Raphael Holinshed/Orson Welles
Based on plays by: William Shakespeare

It’s almost unfair for me to review this film because I really couldn’t stay awake for a lot of it. I’ll try, though.

Falstaff (Welles) is often considered Shakespeare’s greatest creation. He was certainly his most used, appearing in both Henry IV plays and The Merry Wives Of Windsor. (Welles added bits of Henry V, Richard II and The Merry Wives.) While I don’t know a lot about those plays, I do know that Orson Welles was probably born to play the role of the fat knight.

The film follows Falstaff from his mentoring of Prince Hal (Keith Baxter) and becoming his drinking buddy, much to the chagrin of Hal’s father, King Henry IV (John Gielgud). Falstaff is a particularly boisterous knight who really doesn’t have much use for war. He’s pretty much a coward and a braggart.

Welles is, of course, amazing, as is the rest of the cast. The movie itself is very good (I think) and was Welles’ favorite of all of his work. Strangely, it’s completely unavailable in the US on DVD. This print was barely found by Lars of the Alamo after a long search. It’s a very difficult film to see…which makes it all the more sad that I couldn’t stay awake. I may never get the chance to see it again unless I get a region free Blu-Ray player and buy the UK edition…or unless Criterion can get the Welles estate to give up the rights for a little while.

I do remember the film having a very strange and surreal feel to it. There were a LOT of close-ups of Welles’ puffy, bloated face and a lot of Citizen Kanian shots from very low. It was obviously very low budget (Welles was pretty broke at the time) and it sounded like all of the dialogue was recorded in post. The scenery, though, was very realistic and looked like it may have been filmed in an actual medieval village. It was very interesting to look at…just not at 2am. I really want to give it another chance, so…are you listening, Criterion! Get someone on that right away!

RICHARD PRYOR LIVE IN CONCERT(1979)

Directed by: Jeff Margolis
Written by: Richard Pryor/Paul Mooney (uncredited)

This one I’m REALLY unqualified to review. I slept through just about the entire last half of it.

I will say this, though: I really feel like I didn’t miss very much. I know that everyone I’ve seen do this material basically got it from him, but, as I’ve seen Eddie Murphy and Dave Chappelle, I’ve seen all of this material. And, as I’ve seen a LOT of Bill Cosby, anytime Richard mentioned his family, I felt like I had already heard that stuff, too.

Richard Pryor was an amazing talent and I have the utmost respect for what he did. I just feel like his stuff is archival footage at this point. I almost hate to make this correlation, but it’s the only one I can think of. It was kind of like watching Al Jolson. He was amazing in his day. But watching him now is just kind of…quaint. He’s no longer shocking and, honestly, not nearly as funny as he once was. I was not electrified and my brain did not melt. I fell asleep instead. Maybe I’ll give this one another chance when I’m more awake, too.

THE GREEN HORNET (2011)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Michel Gondry
Written by: Seth Rogen/Evan Goldberg
Based on radio show created by: George W Trendle

This is another one that I’m not really allowed to talk too much about. All I can really say is that it was a LOT of fun. FAR more fun (and violent) than I thought it would be from the trailers. I’ll write a full review of it and post it when the movie is closer to release in January. For now, though, that’s all I’ve got.

Moving on.

Speaking of stuff I can’t review, the next one I can’t even say that I saw. I’ll just say that it was a pretty good replicant of a bygone, much beloved/loathed genre.

Moving on.

DRIVE ANGRY 3D (2011)

***½ (3.5/5)

Directed by: Patrick Lussier
Written by: Todd Farmer/Patrick Lussier

Speaking of genres of a bygone era that are coming back, Drive Angry is a grindhouse film through and through…although seen through modern eyes.

Milton (Nicolas Cage) is a man on a mission. He’s trying to find his baby granddaughter before she is sacrificed by a Satanic cult. Meanwhile, The Accountant (William Fichtner in a role that could finally make him a huge star…if only this movie had a real audience) is hot on his tail.

Piper (Amber Heard), on the other hand, is just trying to get away from a suddenly abusive boyfriend. She picks up Milton and they end up going on a long ride to Hell together.

The movie, brought to us by the folks who brought us My Bloody Valentine 3D, is a lot of fun, if a bit fluffy. It’s not nearly as violent as it could be, although it is pretty damn violent. There’s not a lot that sticks out (hahaha) as being anything really special, but it didn’t matter too terribly much. It was a fun ride and better than MBV by a long shot. Not only does it have a lot of great and strange characters, but the action (car chases abound) is great.

What DOES stick out, though, is Fichtner. The man is A-FUCKING-MAZING! I don’t want to give too much about his character away, but he is smooth, cool and fucking deadly. I never thought that he could be this cool, although I’ve always known that he was a great actor. Sure, this doesn’t call for huge acting chops…just a lot of charm and magnetism. Strangely enough, he’s got those things in spades.

Go to the movie for some fun, stay for Fichtner. Nic Cage is pretty cool in it (although the fuckin’ and killin’ scene is a bit creepy), but Fichtner steals the whole movie.

Just after the closing credits started, Harry got on the mic and told us all to get our butts out of our seats and get on the buses waiting outside…we were going on a field trip. The buses took us to the Bob Bullock Museum’s IMAX theatre so that we could see…

TRON: LEGACY (2010)

***½ (3.5/5)

Directed by: Joseph Kosinski
Written by: Edward Kitsis/Adam Horowitz/Brian Klugman/Lee Sternthal
Based on characters created by: Steven Lisberger/Bonnie MacBird

Almost 30 years ago, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) created a world inside a computer. He fought the Master Control Program and beat it. He made it out of the computer…but he just couldn’t leave well enough alone. He had a life on the outside, including a young son named Sam (Garrett Hedlund). For some reason, though, he left it all behind and disappeared.

Jump ahead to 2010. Kevin’s old partner, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) gets a text from the old arcade…where no one has been since the day Kevin disappeared. He sends Sam there to investigate. Sam gets pulled into the digital world and meets…his dad?

But it’s actually Clu, the program that Kevin created in his own image. What’s his design on the world of The Grid? How will Sam get back home? And why is Kevin protecting Quorra (Olivia Wilde, who makes her second BNAT appearance after the Cowboys & Aliens clip)?

Besides the graphics being worlds better than the original, the whole damn movie is worlds better than the original. I don’t know if you’ve seen the 1982 film lately, but it’s kind of slow and, well…dull. Not a whole lot happens besides the light cycle games. Everything else was just a lot of posturing and talk. If it hadn’t been for those cycles and the “digital” effects, TRON would have been completely forgotten…much like its predecessor, The Black Hole. (Watch for a quick reference to that film…which will be remade by the same director in 2012. I kinda can’t wait. Maybe he can make that one good, too.)

This sequel has action, comedy, romance and even…dare I say it…resonance! I actually kind of remembered it after I left the theatre!

Ok, it’s not a GREAT film, certainly. How could it be? It’s a movie about people getting sucked into a computer and fighting in gladiator games, for Hitchcock’s sake! BUT, it’s a lot of fun and beautiful to look at on the giant screen in 3D. (Not all of it is in 3D. Only the big CGI scenes, really…which is most of the film.)

The only thing that really came anywhere near disappointing me was Clu. He was ALL CGI. There wasn’t a dude playing him with Jeff Bridges’ young face superimposed on his. It was a completely CGI character and you could tell. He moved unrealistically, which may not have been so jarring in the Grid scenes. But they did the same things with the opening scenes that take place when Kevin is younger and Sam is a little boy. At first I thought that they had actually made the whole film in CGI like The Polar Express or something! But it was just him. Not sure how cool that was.

Other than that, though, it was really cool and a great way to end the day.

I really want to get the Daft Punk soundtrack to the film. (Watch for them quickly in the club scene…or people in helmets like they wear. No real way to tell.) It’s reminiscent enough of Wendy Carlos’ original score, but different enough to be its own amazing being. It’s a damn sight better than Journey…who also make a quick appearance early on.

Thus endeth BNAT 12, also known as CineMandom! It was an awesome day and one of the best BNATs that I’ve been to…even if I knew that True Grit and TRON were going to play. (The original TRON played the very first BNAT 12 years ago as a vintage film.)

I saw a lot of movies that I can’t wait to see again and, of course, I can’t wait until BNAT Friday The 13th! (Will Harry be that obvious? Most likely. But it’s really the best way to go.)

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: David Yates
Written by: Steve Kloves
Based on book by: JK Rowling

Accio Previews! (They just keep gettin’ worse, don’t they?)

GREEN HORNET–I was actually a little bit worried about this one. I mean, Seth Rogen as a superhero? Doesn’t really work for me. But it’s a Michel Gondry film, so I have to at least give it a chance, right?

Now that I’ve seen a preview, though, I’m not quite as worried. It looks like it could be a lot of fun. Sure, more comedy than the Hornet was really meant to be, I guess. But whatever. I’ll check it out.

SEASON OF THE WITCH–Erm…Nic Cage as a medieval knight out to save/burn a witch? Bruckheimer type action ensues? Not so sure about this one. Looks like it could be complete crap. But it does have Ron Perlman in it. Maybe it’ll be alright.

What am I talking about? Ron’s been in some shit. Unsureness re-ensured.

TRON LEGACY–Every preview I see for this movie promises that the sequel will indeed be better than the original. A rare occurrence, but not unheard of, of course. And with source material as ripe for re-invention as Tron, this could be fucking amazing. I’m there.

Now, enough previews. Let’s get Harry.

When last we met Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends, things were indeed looking quite dim for our heroes. Their leader, Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) had been killed by someone that they thought was on their side (kind of). The Dark Lord (Ralph Fiennes) has begun his reign of terror on the Wizarding AND Muggle worlds.

And, of course, our trio had started something even MORE dangerous and frightening: relationships. Serious relationships! Harry had started snogging with Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright) and Ron and Hermione (Rupert Grint and Emma Watson) had just started the couple that everyone has pushed for since the first book/movie.

Now, after an attack on Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour’s (Domhnall Gleeson and Clemence Poesy) wedding, Harry, Ron and Hermione know that they have to go it alone. The lives of their loved ones (and perhaps the rest of the world) depends on it.

The rest of the film, after that initial half hour or so of everyone being together, is basically the three of them on the road trying to find Horcruxes (objects that Voldemort’s soul has been broken and stored in…there are four left out of the seven) and destroy them. That’s harder than it sounds because they have no idea what three of them might be. One could be the pencil that Ron just picked up to write a note with. No one really knows.

What really struck me about this installment is how desperate and desolate the whole thing is. All of the characters are so desperate in everything they do that, when there is a bit of comic relief, it’s almost jarring that these people could laugh at all during a time like this. The Trio spend most of the film so pissed off that they’re put in the spot that they’re in that you just can’t believe that they still love each other the way they do. And sometimes they don’t believe it, either. The anger and desperation for normalcy comes through in everything they do. Harry and Hermione try to break it during a beautifully shot scene where they hear a song on the radio (which, until now, has been creepy lists of Wizards who have died) and just start dancing with each other. It’s a much needed break in the darkness that couldn’t come a moment too soon…but it might be all too late.

David Yates, after directing the fifth and sixth installments of the series, has finally found his voice…basically by going back to the third film for inspiration. He’s darkened things up a lot and made the film as desolate as possible. There’s not a single shot of Hogwart’s, but he sets the film instead in ugly, yet beautiful areas of quiet solitude like an abandoned and destroyed trailer park or a moor that has all but dried up and blown away. There are establishing shots that remind me of great 70s films like Dawn Of The Dead or Badlands.

And then there’s the absolute horror of the whole thing. What comes out of the first horcrux they find is so disgustingly blobulous that it’s hard to imagine that you could stay sane actually looking at the thing. (And the images it conjures for Ron are creepy on their own…near nudity and all.) And the less said about the old woman, the better.

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows may well be the best of the series, finally overtaking Prisoner Of Azkaban. We’ll have to see what happens with the second part of the film, but if Yates was able to keep this level of intensity for that second half (and the after the fact 3D doesn’t ruin it), he could well have an amazing film under his belt.

My question is this: what will we do when Harry Potter is over? What will we move onto next? The only series that has done this sort of bank is, unfortunately, Twilight. But it’s so awful that I can’t even fathom thinking of it taking Harry’s place. Narnia is still chugging along and (I think) getting better…we’ll see about the third movie when it comes out. All of the other fantasy series have fallen flat.

What are your thoughts? What’s the next big series that kids and adults will get into?

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: Jeong-beom Lee
Written by: Jeong-beom Lee

According to Fantastic Fest, Man From Nowhere star Won Bin has been a pretty-boy star in Korea for a while and this is him trying to break away from that. I trust them and all, but he was also in Tae Guk Gi (a gritty war film) and Mother (a crime film by Bong Joon-ho, directory of The Host). I think he’s already broken free from that image.

This time, though, it seems that he is stomping on it until it finally dies. Here, he plays Cha Tae-sik, a pawnshop owner with a mysterious past. When a little neighbor girl and her mom are kidnapped by drug dealers, he goes on a rampage of bloody revenge to find them.

Keep in mind that there’s American bloody (think maybe Payback or Kill Bill) and then there’s Korean bloody. The film notes on the Festival website said that this hearkens back to the 70s grindhouse pictures. Honestly, I don’t even know if some of them were quite as bloody as this. (Especially since they consider the Lee Marvin films an inspiration for this one…his movies weren’t that bloody at all.)

But the blood is nothing. What’s really disturbing is the constant peril that the kids are in. The little girl that he is after is definitely of the “cute as a button” variety, and seeing her in danger of having her organs harvested is not something that we see everyday in America…although, it probably happens.

The story isn’t really anything new. It’s a bloody revenge/”give me back my neighbor little girl” film. Of that genre, though, it’s absolutely one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. I heard a guy on the way out of the theatre saying that, with a little push, it could be the next Taken. I haven’t seen that movie yet, so I can’t say whether it’s better or not. But I have a feeling that American audiences will rebel against this one, not just because it’s subtitled (and, unless it’s about Jesus, subtitles still don’t do so well), but because it’s pretty fuckin’ dark and violent. Most of America won’t be down for it, I don’t think.

If you can stomach it, see it. I recommend it whole-heartedly.

RE-ANIMATOR (1985)

***** (5/5)

Directed by: Stuart Gordon
Written by: Dennis Paoli/William Norris/Stuart Gordon
Based on short story by: HP Lovecraft

The 80s were a pretty amazing time for horror. Somehow it seemed like filmmakers could get away with just about anything. There was blood and boobs all over the screens and hardly anyone was saying shit about it. Some of the strangest horror films every made were released in the 80s. I mean, when else would Basket Case have been released? But Re-Animator really changed it all.

Re-Animator. The grand-daddy of splatter. Without this film, there would be no Evil Dead 2. No Hostel. Hell, probably no Saving Private Ryan. It’s the one that started it all. Anytime you see blood and guts splatter all over the room, you can thank Stuart Gordon and this crazy little movie.

The story, in case you don’t know, is of Herbert West (Jeffery Combs, Gordon’s version of Bruce Campbell…or Robert DeNiro), a young med student who wants to reanimate dead bodies. He worked on it in Switzerland, but was thrown out of the country. Now he’s at Miskitonic University and at it again.

West meets up with Dan Cain (Bruce Abbott), a promising student who is engaged to the daughter of the dean (Barbara Crampton). When he and West start working together, things get a little…crazy.

The importance of this movie can’t be overstated. Sure, it’s no Oscar winner, by any means. But that doesn’t matter. It changed the face of film, for better or worse. (I certainly think for better.) If you are into horror at all (and especially gore), you need to see this. But, then again, if you’re into horror and you’ve never seen this movie…then you’re not into horror.

NEVER LET ME GO (2010)

**½ (2.5/5)

Directed by: Mark Romanek
Written by: Alex Gurland
Based on book by: Kazuo Ishiguro

In an alternate universe, just after WWII biological science took a HUGE leap forward. We were able to extend life expectancy to at least 100 and basically abolish disease.

This was done by cloning people and basically harvesting organs from the clones as they grew up. (An emerging theme for today, eh?) The clones are sequestered at schools around the world. The kids live as orphans at these boarding schools without ever knowing that they are, in fact, clones.

Three of these kids become very close friends, even falling in love. Kathy (Carrie Mulligan) is an extremely caring young lady who falls for Tommy (Andrew Garfield), a volatile young man who doesn’t seem to have the imagination of some of the other kids. When he isn’t picked for sports teams, he tends to go apeshit on the field. Kathy’s best friend, Ruth (Keira Knightly), sees her friend falling for this boy and does what any young bitch in training would do: she kisses Tommy and becomes his girlfriend.

Then they find out what they really are. They do nothing except grow up and have a slightly different outlook on life. That’s fine, but I wish that the rest of the movie had intrigued me as much as this first part. (This part that takes place at the school is acted by three very good young actors: Izzy Meikle-Small, Charlie Rowe and Ella Purnell.)

The kids turn into teenagers (and the actors we know) and the story is only slightly less engaging. Ruth and Tommy are still together and exploring their sexuality. Kathy is still on the sidelines, pining over the boy who may actually still love her.

Then they grow up some more and I lose all interest. The rest of the story is kind of a cold version of three young people at the end of their lives figuring out why they are alive. I really wish that I had cared after they became adults, but they just ceased to be interesting people. The acting was great and the movie looked really good (Romanek and cinematographer Adam Kimmel did a lot of research to make the movie look like an old Japanese film), but I just didn’t care after a certain point.

Think The Island – action + a bit of heart…but not enough to make it really good, only better.

The story, though, says a lot about human nature and what we do with our lives. It makes says a lot about who we are and how we want to live and where we want to go. Unfortunately, the movie didn’t move me. It did, however, make me want to read Ishiguro’s book. He also wrote The Remains Of The Day, which I have always been interested in. Maybe, at some day, I’ll actually pick them up. Until then, we have this movie that…well…is just kind of cold. Re-watch Remains instead.

MACHETE MAIDENS UNLEASHED! (2010)

****½ (4.5/5)

Directed by: Mark Hartley
Written by: Mark Hartley

As he did with Not Quite Hollywood two years ago, Mark Hartley has spot-lighted a little known bit of exploitation film history and made a bunch of film fans want to see these terrible movies.

This time, he put his focus on the films that American exploitation filmmakers made in the Philippines throughout the 70s. Roger Corman was one of the main ones, but he took his entire cadre of proteges over there, including Jack Hill, Joe Dante, John Landis and Francis Ford Coppolla.

From the late 60s through the early 80s, the Philippines were an oasis of cheap filmmaking with very few rules, so Corman could go over there, make a film for $5 and come back to make millions. He could treat his actors like shit and his crew even worse, paying them a couple of bucks a day. If someone broke a leg, they had a few bucks stuffed in their pants and were carted home.

Through interviews with the participants (including a few key Philippin0 filmmakers), Hartley creates a pretty vivid picture of how it was over there. Landis, of course, is the voice of reason and steals the show from everyone else. He has basically no filter and will tell it like it is. Even though he can’t seem to make a film these days, I’ll always love him for his recent interviews.

I know that most of these films are complete shit (Hartley said that really only The Big Bird Cage and two others were any good at all), but I want to see a bunch of them. Thanks, Hartley. Thanks a lot.

Definitely check this movie out if you have any love for exploitation filmmaking. Hell, even if you don’t have any love for it, check it out. You may begin to understand why the rest of us love it so much.

HATCHET II (2010)

**½ (2.5/5)

Directed by: Adam Green
Written by: Adam Green

Victor Crowley (Kane Hodder) is at it again in this sequel to the near-hit from 2006. This time, though…um…well, it’s more of the same. Marybeth (Danielle Harris filling in for Tamara Feldman from the first film) is the sole survivor from the first movie. In fact, this movie takes up exactly where the first one left off…to the second. She’s still fighting with Crowley on the boat after everyone else has been killed.

She’s eventually semi-victorious and is saved by an old man who tells her to go see Reverend Zombie (Tony Todd reprising his role from the first movie). Zombie leads her and a crew of misfits (including Parry Shen playing the twin brother of his character from the first) into the swamps to find Marybeth’s dad and brother’s bodies and to rid the world of Victor Crowley once and for all.

Of course, bloodletting ensues.

Once again, the kills are imaginative, bloody and pretty awesome. (Including one that I FUCKING WROTE ABOUT 5 YEARS AGO!!! Goddammit. Oh well. It’s not like Adam Green read my bit and stole it. Whatever…) Unfortunately, where the first one had a nearly decent script and some alright acting, this one followed the trend of those early 80s slasher sequels: the script was awful and the acting even worse. (Horror writer/director Tom Holland was especially bad.) There were times that it was almost hard to watch because of the terrible acting.

But fans of the genre should still be pretty pleased with the blood and creative kills. As long as you don’t pay any attention to the rest of the stuff going on on the screen, you should be fine. Still pretty fun, but not even as good as the first one. And, while I like the first one, I know that it’s not a particularly great movie.

Watch for lots of cameos by horror stuntmen and writers…not that I knew who any of them were. Unless they’ve been on screen, I don’t necessarily recognize them. Sorry to disappoint, kids.

Oh yeah, and this is an unrated film that’s being released into theatres. Let’s all thank AMC theatres for liking the film enough to actually show the unrated version! I only wish that it was a better film…

Directed by: Lee Unkrich
Written by: Michael Arndt/Andrew Stanton/Lee Unkrich

I wanna be a toy!

But before I do that, let’s see some previews.

TANGLED–I’m gonna go ahead and tread on dangerous ground here and say that I kinda want to see this one. It’s basically Rapunzel, but Disney has changed the focus from the girl to the guy. Why would they do such a thing? Maybe because even little girls are tired of princesses. They’re kinda boring. All they seem to do is get in trouble.

I’m not defending Disney’s decisions because, many times, they’re dumb. They haven’t made a truly classic film without Pixar since The Lion King back in 1994 (and even that wasn’t particularly original). What I saw in the trailer, though, was a dumb guy being put down by a much stronger and smarter girl. Without seeing the movie (or the trailer, I have a feeling) the movie has already been deemed sexist. This is much like people saying that Dogma was sacrilegious before seeing it. At least with that, though, there was a poop monster to complain about. Now it seems that we’re complaining because the princess is strong, but we don’t see her. Maybe Disney wants boys to want to see this one, something they haven’t had since maybe Emperor’s New Groove 10 years ago. And maybe they realize that little girls want to see action movies, too. They’re not so hung up on movies about sex, shoes and shiny vampires.

Yes, I’m saying it. Disney is actually being LESS sexist than the makers of Sex And The City 2 and Twilight. They’re at least making a movie that will probably end up appealing to boys and girls. (Although, the guy in charge did specifically say that he wanted to appeal to boys. Meh. All movies have a target audience.)

Or neither, which is probably closer to the truth. Unless there’s a huge uproar about the movie, it will probably not do well. If there is a protest, then it should do really well. Make your choice carefully.

Anyway, let’s move on.

THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE–I actually don’t know how I feel about this one. A lot of people seem to really like the trailer and think that it’s part of Nic Cage’s comeback. I think it looks pretty silly. Jay Bucharel finds out that he’s a wizard after years of living under a staircase…oh…wait. Huh?

Ok, nevermind about the staircase, but he is a wizard and Nic Cage is going to teach him the ins and outs of the wizarding world, including pointy shoes. I’ll see it, but I really don’t expect much out of it. Although there is a mop bit in there, so maybe…

So, how are the toys doing these days?

In 1995, a little animation studio partnered up with a big animation studio and made a movie that no one though would do any business at all. Sure, it had a great cast and a few appealing characters, but were there any to latch onto? Did the story intrigue the audience? Did they really feel for these characters? And would audiences be interested in a fully CGI world?

The answers ended up being resounding and emphatic YESes. Toy Story went on to make millions for Pixar and Disney while shortsighted retailers did not order enough dolls to meet demand.

Then it all happened again in 1999 when Toy Story 2 came out. Bigger, better and more award-winning, it was an even bigger hit.

So, why did it take so long for Pixar to make a third Toy Story movie? My guess is that they wanted to do it right. This is their tentpole and, if they screwed it up, the fans would never forgive them.

What they went with was fucking brilliant.

Andy is growing up and leaving for college. What’s to be done with all of his toys? Donate them? Trash them? Take them with him? Or put them in the attic?

Andy makes his decision. He wants the bulk of them in the attic, but he’s taking Woody (Tom Hanks) with him. Woody’s his best friend, after all. Unfortunately, he gets distracted and the bag of toys ends up being taken to Sunnyside Daycare. Woody, being the loyal guy he is, goes with them.

Most of the rest of the movie is a great prison movie. Woody breaks out and back in to Sunnyside, Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) tries to lead, but is a bit too complex for his own good. Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head (Don Rickles and Estelle Harris) get bigger roles. Rex (Wallace Shawn) is scared of everything. Jessie (Joan Cusack) is just as brave and loyal as Woody. Slinky Dog (Blake Clark taking over for his late friend Jim Varney) is always useful. Hamm (John Ratzenberger) is as snarky as ever.

Sunnyside is ruled by Lotso (Ned Beatty), a big Teddy bear that smells like strawberries. Unfortunately, he rules it with an iron paw with help from Ken (Michael Keaton). Ken falls hard for Barbie (Jodi Benson, voice of Ariel) when she shows up with our heroes. It’s as if they were made for each other!

Toy Story 3 is that strange thing: a third film in a series that’s also the best. Pixar always manages to outdo themselves in ways that we just can’t fathom. As much heart and soul as there is in the first two Toy Story films, this one has more. Woody and Buzz and all of their friends are real people, even if their made of CGI plastic. There’s a point in the movie where I’m sure the entire audience was holding their breath and tearing up at the same time. It was most definitely the end for our favorite toys!

Luckily, all’s well that ends well and this is the best possible ending for the story of Woody and the gang. It’s an epic the likes of which Pixar has never done before (although Wall-E and Up come pretty damn close…they’re pretty epic). If Pixar keeps raising their own bar, we won’t be able to stand it when they finally make their last film. We won’t survive such orgasmic glee!

So, yes. I loved everything about this movie. It’s big. It’s smart. It’s sweet. It’s heartbreaking. And, best of all, it’s like the embrace of old friends.

MR. NICE

*** (3/5)

Directed by: Bernard Rose
Written by: Bernard Rose

Howard Marks (Rhys Ifans) was one of the most notorious drug dealers in England and one of the most famous people to ever come out of Wales. But he was such a nice guy that it was hard for anyone to really hate him. He was a family man, too. His wife, Judy (Chloe Sevigny) popped out babies like she was getting money for them.
What led to this life of crime? Fun. Not much more than that, from what Bernard Rose’s movie tells us. Howard was a straight A student and good boy until he started smoking pot. Then he started to find out how to import the drug. As long as he had fun doing it, he was going to do it.

I think the main problem with movies like this is Martin Scorsese. He’s pretty much perfected this genre. With Goodfellas, he created the perfect “fun gangster as family man” movie. He tried again with Casino, but even he couldn’t top himself.

Rose isn’t nearly as good of a filmmaker, so his Welsh version of Goodfellas just kind of falls flat. It runs everywhere and catches none of its goals.

This isn’t to say that it’s a bad movie. It’s just mediocre. Rhys Ifans puts in a good performance as the fun-loving, swingin’ drug lord. Chloe doesn’t have much at all to do as his ever-suffering wife. (In fact, we’re never quite sure if she hates his life or is indifferent to it.) The best performance is probably from David Thewlis as the true bad guy, Jim McCann. This guy not only deals drugs, but he’s a gunrunner. And he’s fucking insane.

One thing Rose did very well was capture the period on film. Not only did the film itself looks like it was shot in the 70s most of the time, but, instead of shooting new footage for outdoor shots and montages, he inserted the characters into stock footage from the 70s. They weren’t perfectly edited in, but it looked great.

Not a great film, but maybe worth seeing if you’re a fan of either of the male leads. Not so much if you’re a Chloe fan because she’s not given a damn thing to do.

ELEKTRA LUXX

*** (3/5)

Directed by: Sebastian Gutierrez
Written by:Sebastian Gutierrez

In this thrilling sequel to the Jennifer Garner actioner….

Um. No. Forget that. But this is a sequel, strangely enough.

Last year, Gutierrez brought Women In Trouble to South By Southwest. It nearly took the festival by storm (kinda), so he decided to do it again, this time focusing on (now former) porn star Elektra Luxx (Carla Gugino). She’s pregnant with a dead man’s baby, but she’s still super-hot and very sexual.

Elektra gets caught up with a young lady and her fiancee who are having some problems, a private eye looking for song lyrics (Timothy Olyphant), a couple who can’t seem to keep their hands off of other people and two girls who may or may not explore their sexuality together.

The movie is very episodic and doesn’t necessarily gel all that well, but there are some very funny moments and the characters are funny enough to keep us interested. It’s a silly little movie that’s not meant to be much more. I think it helps that the movie almost looks like a porn and that the actors are all putting on their best over-acting faces.

Gutierrez doesn’t show a lot of visual flair except in the dream sequences, which are mostly sexual fantasies. (The one with Emmanuelle Chriqui being the standout, although Carla Gugino is pretty much the perfect woman.) They’re not all that interesting as far as the style is concerned, but it’s a nice break as far as the story is concerned. It keeps up the kind of silly atmosphere that the movie is going for.

Really, though, the funniest parts were the parts with Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a video blogger who is obsessed with porn. He talks fast and furiously about the great Elektra Luxx and her career. Then his sister gets involved.

About ten minutes from the end, though, the projector broke down, so I have no clue how the movie ends. I could make up my own ending, but I somehow don’t think that it would do Gutierrez or his characters justice.

Instead of the end of the movie, we got a Q&A from Gutierrez and his cast of lovely ladies. This is when I realized that Joseph Gordon-Levitt was just doing an impression of Sebastian Gutierrez. The guy talks really fast and is incredibly funny. He called out SXSW about 100 times for having a crappy projector (all in good fun, of course) and seemed to have as much fun as possible with the situation. No matter what I thought of the movie (and I did like it, just not as much as I had hoped), I want to see more of his stuff because he’s so freakin’ engaging.

They plan on showing the film again, but I don’t know if I’ll be able to make it to the screening. Hopefully I’ll be able to catch it on video or online when it gets released because I’m pretty interested to know what happens to all of the characters. Then again, I’ll still have to wait for the third in the trilogy, Women In Ecstasy.

A young man is on a date. She makes her way into his apartment and sees his shrine to Star Wars. He proceeds to prove that he doesn’t really care about them by destroying them one by one.

You know, it was kinda funny and uncomfortable, but I don’t really know if I can condone the destruction of stuff that is a) fun and b) worth money. The director said that it wasn’t worth much, but I’m not so sure about that.

DISTRICT 13: ULTIMATUM (2009)

***½ (3.5/5)

Directed by: Patrick Alessandrin
Written by: Luc Besson

A couple of years ago, Fantastic Fest brought us District 13. It wasn’t an amazing action film, but it was a lot of fun and had some pretty charismatic leads. The action, mostly parkour with martial arts to do the actual hitting and beating and stuff, was pretty exciting.

This year, the same leads (David Belle, co-creator of parkour, and French martial artist Cyril Rafelli) are back to save the part of Paris that everyone thinks isn’t worth saving. This time out, though, there’s a government conspiracy to destroy District 13 to bring in a company called Harriburton (ha ha) to rebuild.

Belle and Rafelli can’t abide. Chaos ensues.

This movie is increasingly silly, but a lot of fun. If you liked the first one, you’ll probably like this one. Just PLEASE don’t think about it too much. If you do, you’ll notice that none of the soldiers at the end who are protecting the president have any guns.

UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: A NEW BEGINNING (2010)

*½ (1.5/5)

Directed by: John Hyams
Written by: Victor Ostrovsky
Based on characters by: Richard Rothstein/Christopher Leitch/Dean Devlin

Universal Fucking Soldier? Seriously? You’re kidding, right?

Nope. Dolph Lundgren was NOT kidding when he announced the title of the last secret screening. We were about to watch a sequel to a movie that no one really liked in the first place.

Now, I’ve never seen the first Universal Soldier. I’m not a Jean-Claude Van Damme fan, so why would I watch that piece of crap that Dean Devlin (the unofficial re-maker of better films) pooped out back in the early 90s? But, here I am, watching the new one from John Hyams, son of Peter.

Jean-Claude is still the hero here, but someone is attempting to rehabilitate him now. To make him a peaceful killing machine. (In case you don’t know, JCVD and Dolph are soldiers genetically engineered soldiers, impervious to pain and single-minded.) He gets brought back into the fold to save the children of a Russian leader. They’ve been kidnapped by a revolutionary who has the keys to another universal soldier played by Andre Arlovski (an actual UFC fighter). Then there’s a crazy doctor who helped design the USes. He secretly has Dolph on his side.

First question: why does America care? Second question: why do WE care? Third question: the USes are super fuckin’ strong, but none too bright. Not a one of them seems to know that they are basically fighting zombies. One shot to the head and it’s over. But, no. That only happens once.

The film is directed ok, although I think a lot of the action is too close, a big problem that a LOT of action movies have lately. Andre is a pretty amazing find on the fighting front. The fight scene between him and JCVD was great. But, really, the high point was the fight between JCVD and Dolph.

It still didn’t make me want to see the first one.

DAYBREAKERS (2009)

**** (4/5)

Directed by: Michael Spierig/Peter Spierig
Written by: Michael Spierig/Peter Spierig

Before this movie started, Tim League, one of his buddies and a stuffed deer appeared before us. Tim was dressed as a crow and his buddy was barely dressed as a fox. The three of them then proceeded to take the piss out of Antichrist.

Good for them. It was kind of amazing. That pretentious pile deserved it.

Now, on with the movie at hand.

The world has changed. About 95% of the population are vampires due to an epidemic about 10 years before. They farm humans in Matrix-style pods for their blood, but now the humans are running out. What’s a vamp to do?

Edward (Ethan Hawke) is a blood specialist at the leading blood farm run by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill). He is in charge of finding a substitute that will not make vampires explode while making more money for Bromley.

But Edward has too much of a conscience. He feels pity for the humans. His brother, Frankie (Michael Dorman) on the other hand, is a human hunter for the military. He pretty much shows no mercy and can’t understand why Edward no longer drinks human blood.

Enter Audrey (Claudia Karvan) and Elvis (Willem Dafoe). They are humans who are trying to find a cure. In fact, Elvis HAS been cured, but they don’t really understand how. Can Edward help them?

Not a whole lot of new ground broken for vampires, but what new ground can really be broken? The Spierig brothers (Undead) have created their own little world, though, and that world works pretty perfectly. Watch closely and you’ll see a lot of gags about normal vampire life.

But this isn’t a jokey film. It takes itself just seriously enough to be a really good vampire movie. Not scary, really. Just a lot of fun with LOTS of gore and grue. There’s even a bit of a political message that doesn’t get beaten into your brain.

Check this one out when it comes out. It’s a really fun flick.

That’s it for Fantastic Fest 2009 unless they decide to show movies for free on Sunday. Back to normal life. Watch for me in the theatre. I’ll be right behind you.