Daybreakers (2009)


Directed by: Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig

Starring: Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, Willem Dafoe

Plot: In the year 2019, a plague has transformed most every human into vampires. Faced with a dwindling blood supply, the fractured dominant race plots their survival; meanwhile, a researcher works with a covert band of vamps on a way to save humankind. Taken from www.imdb.com.


Let me start this review by addressing all of the people who didn't like The Spierig Brothers' previous movie "Undead." *ahem* Fuck you for hating on an original, well-put-together, technically and comedically brilliant film because it did something a little different. I do not understand you zombie fans that have to have that shit started by a virus and only a virus every single fucking time. Just because somebody tries to use aliens or some supernatural explanation it is not sacrilege. Just because George A. Romero invented the fucking things doesn't mean everyone has to copy his exactly. "Undead" was genius and you're morons for not recognizing this.

That said, I was naturally excited for the brothers' sophomore effort into horror movies. The fact that Sam Neill was involved only served to excite me even more. I will watch anything -except "Jurassic Park 3"- over and over again.

Our main character is Edward (Ethan Hawke), a reluctant vampire who works at a blood bank. I doubt this was intentional but given that he only drinks pigs blood and is kind of a pussy, it makes for a nice touch.

Edward is looking for a blood substitute so that vampires will not have to rely on the ever-dwindling human stock for sustenance. His employer Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) is especially concerned about this due to his love of being a vampire. It seems that when a vampire goes without blood, they turn into a Count Orlock-looking bat creature called a Subsider.

With blood supplies dwindling to practically nothing and Subsider epidemics popping up all over the city it's looking like the end of vampire society as we know it. That's why it's fortuitous when Edward runs into a group of humans trying to escape the vampires.

It seems that the humans are in the midst of a man named Elvis (Willem Dafoe) who has managed to accidentally cure himself of vampirism. Edward and Elvis work to replicate this effect for the benefit of the world as a whole.

Ethan Hawke gives a more than passable performance as Edward Dalton. I don't know if it's Hawke's fault but Edward is a rather boring character who doesn't really have much growth throughout the film. He becomes less of a pussy toward the end but that's about as far as it goes.

Claudia Karvan plays Audrey Bennett, the head of the human resistance. She feels like a tacked-on character added simply to have some sort of lead female in the movie. She brings nothing special to the table and as such I'm not going to talk about her any longer.

Willem Defoe rules every scene he's in. He doesn't go over the top with Elvis, but it could hardly be said that he's playing the character straight either. Elvis speaks in a deep southern accent that seems to fade in and out at will. Given that the film takes place nowhere near where there should be southern people I believe this was an intentional way to bring across what an eccentric person the character is.

Sam Neill is also great as our villain and it is honestly a shame that Bromley and Elvis never share a scene together. Perhaps this would have caused the movie to explode from trying to contain too much greatness in one place. Unfortunately the role is a bit too small for the actor, Bromley is a bit of a generic evil bastard and is given little characterization beyond this to exploit.

"Okay, who just said 'Jurassic Park 3 sucked?'"

The story is a pretty straightforward affair, nothing that's not been touched on in a myriad of other films numerous times. What makes "Daybreakers" unique is the way it immerses you in its world. We're treated with small tidbits throughout the film that lend themselves to bringing this world to life.

There are toothpaste ads featuring people with pearly white fangs. A brief mention is given to forest fires being started by vampire animals going into sunlight and at one point we see the aftermath of one such happening though it's just something we see in passing during a chase scene. Mirrors are all video screens because vampires don't have reflections.

The Spierigs do their job in making this world feel real and not like something just dreamed up for a movie. It's impossible not to compare this movie to the "Blade" movies, which failed to immerse you in a similar world in any way.

In many ways "Daybreakers" is what movies like the "Blade" and "Underworld" series' should have been. Also, in comparrison to both of those movies, this one doesn't skimp on the gore. This movie doesn't just show blood. There are several disgusting gore effects and one scene toward the end is basically an bloody orgy of death and dismemberment.

There's some dodgy CGI at a few points but I blame this on the movie's modest budget and not the film-makers.

"Shoot it! It's sparkling for some reason!"

It doesn't re-invent the genre but it certainly breathes some life into it. Not the best vampire movie out there but it's one of the few that manages to be good enough to watch twice and though it could have done more it's a great second effort from a couple of promising film-makers who I hope to hear from again very soon.

I give "Daybreakers" a 5 out of 5. If you like horror at all, make it a point to see this one.

Avatar (2009)


Directed by: James Cameron

Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Steven Lang

Other Actors of Note: Joel Moore, Giovanni Ribisi, Dileep Rao, CCH Pounder, Wes Studi

Plot: A paraplegic marine dispatched to the moon Pandora on a unique mission becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home. Taken from www.imdb.com.


So let me tell you about "Titanic." "Titanic" was the first example I've ever seen of Oscar baiting. Up until then I'd seen only wonderful things (And "Piranha 2") come from the mind of James Cameron. Imagine my surprise when I found out that that piece of shit "Romeo and Juliet + Boat + Explosions = A License to Print Money" movie was made by the same guy responsible for "Terminator", "Aliens", "The Abyss", and "True Lies."

For the record, "Titanic" was the "Twilight" of the late 90s. The only person who seemed to remember what acting was in that movie was Kathy Bates, but when you have a legion of teenage girls (who buy tickets to see it, on average, 3 times each) and housewives who are responsible for the existence of things like "Zane" and "The Lifetime Network" backing you and dragging any begrudging boyfriends/husbands/family members/friends along with them.

Of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger ruined Cameron's big return to movies that weren't ass when he was elected Governor of California and all hopes of "True Lies 2" went out the window. Tom Arnold still sobs into his pillow every night, though I'm told he's been doing that for years.

So naturally, after nothing coming out of the Cameron camp save a couple of documentaries about faggy ocean shit I was stoked to hear he was finally bringing his next movie to the big screen! I was almost as excited for this movie as I was for "Star Wars: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace: Smokey Mesquite BBQ" but I knew, KNEW, that James Cameron would never hurt me like George Lucas did. Right?

"Together, we shall feast upon their tears."

Sam Worthington, I said such wonderful things about you in my "Terminator Salvation" review. Did you just learn to act between this movie and that one? Worthington gives a performance that is alternatively bland and dry, occasionally he mixes it up and gives a dry bland performance. Also, he seems to be unable to hide his accent. Come on man, Liam Neeson is better at pretending to be American than you!

Sigourney Weaver is hot now? How the fuck did that happen? The last time I saw her she looked like something they scraped off Iggy Pop's sphincter (and "Galaxy Quest" doesn't count) so when did she become surprisingly bang-able? In addition to confusing the mighty tiger that resides beneath my fly, she gives a performance that really makes you realize how much it sucks that she hasn't been in any movies lately. I hope the disturbing success of this things results in more Sigourney on-screen and that her looks continue to go all Benjamin Button.

Stephen Lang plays the most stereotypical commanding officer I've ever seen. He has it all: the constantly angry face, the scars, the graying hair. This man has a giant "Bad Guy" sign on him from the first moment we see him, he's practically a caricature and plays it as such.

Giovanni Ribisi is a good actor even though his part isn't really important. Shine on you crazy diamond.

"No you cannot 'HAZ CHEEZBURGER.'"

To call "Avatar's" story formulaic or cliched is to insult other stories of that ilk for generations to come. I sincerely hope that Cameron hammer this script out in a week because any more just seems like a waste of time. This story is so predictable that it plays out like a video game.

The main character shows up, after some introduction he's given his "powers" so to speak. This is followed by an opening boss battle that ends with the main character losing but finding the important part of the game where-upon he meets the love interest and spends a great deal of time playing mini-games until the next boss battle.

Then shit gets complicated, the main character goes and gets an epic mount, aerial combat ensues, explosions ensue, explosions ensue, explosions continue to ensue, final boss, ending cut scene. If the game for this movie sucks it has no excuse because Cameron's got the whole fucking thing mapped out for the developers.

Now a few things should be noted. For one, the Navi may be humanoid but they're easily twice the size of an average human which is something that isn't often done in these sort of films. Another is that the atmosphere on Pandora is light on oxygen and humans have to wear breathing apparatuses to survive. These are fairly original things that most writers overlook.

However, the Navi are pretty stereotypical. They're cat lizards of some sort yet they have breasts (with no nipples) and do everything with some sort of organic USB thing. My first thought on seeing a female Navi: "Captain Kirk would totally fuck that."

"Our five year mission, to boldly spread my syphilis where it has never gone before"

Now of course, the planet of Pandora looks amazing and the CG is fucking breathtaking. Given how much time we spend with Jake in "Thundercat" form this film is practically an animated movie but you never notice that because everything is kept so fluid and realistic looking.

I will say that the much touted 3-D is immersive, but the problem with that is by the second half of this movie I was so "immersed" that I didn't even notice it anymore.

It is not presumptious to say that this film has changed the way that films will be done forever. Cameron has stumbled on to something incredible here that film-makers for generations will benefit from and for that alone this man deserves an Oscar. But just like any other movies that did something ground-breaking technically, it's just not that great.

The story, all the actors in major roles, and the plot progression are all mediocre at best and terrible at worst. Coupled with the film's unnecessary long running time, Avatar just doesn't have a leg to stand on as something other than a technical demonstration. Compared with the other "Who's the REAL monster" alien movie of the last 365 days, "District 9" represents DO and "Avatar" represents DONT. (I wont even go into the fact that "District 9" had awesome CG and equally realistic aliens for a tiny fraction of "Avatar's" budget.)


"Avatar" is a really pretty, really mediocre movie that is too long and I have no urge to watch it again any time soon. It wasn't a bad movie but it's far from good and even farther than what I expect from James Camerion even in a post-"Titanic" world.

But I give Cameron some slack, it has been ten years since he's made a real movie and the last one he made before that was a shitty blockbuster chick flick where a whole bunch of good actors did the exact opposite of what I've just named them able to do.

So you get a freebie, James. "Avatar" was nice and pretty, just don't do it again.

I give "Avatar" a 3 out of 5.

Pontypool (2008) vs. Dead Air (2009)


Pontypool
Director: Bruce McDonald

Starring: Stephen McHattie and Lisa Houle

Dead Air

Director: Corbin Bernsen

Starring: Bill Moseley, Patricia Tallman


Sometimes 2 movies come out around the same time that are so similar that even if there's a big difference between them, it's never enough to avoid comparison. What's worth note is that neither of the similar movies are ever a ripoff of the other. It's just simply a case of 2 similar ideas at the same time.

So I've decided to switch things up here. In addition to reviewing these two movies I'll compare and contrast their similarities and differences and pick which one I think is the better movie.

So here's the plot of both films more or less: Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHatty)/Logan (Bill Moseley) is a shock jock DJ in the small town/big city of Pontypool, Ontario/LA, California. One night/morning a virus spread by the English language/a chemical agent placed by terrorists turns all the people nearby into ravenous monsters. Grant/Logan opts to stay on the air and cover the situation as it happens with the help of his crew and his sassy female producer Syndey (Lisa Houle)/Lucy (Patricia Tallman) and the eyewitness reports of the traffic reporter/frequent on-air caller who eventually gets infected.

So yeah, the plot of these two movies works like a fucking mad lib, they're so alike. In fact here it is if you ever want to write a zombie movie in a radio station:

"__Person's Name__ is a shock jock DJ in the __adjective__ of __Place__ . One __time of day__ a virus spread by the __Half-baked movie mcguffin__ turns all the people nearby into ravenous monsters. __Person's name__ opts to stay on the air and cover the situation as it happens with the help of his crew and his sassy female producer __Woman's name (make it sound sassy)__ and the eyewitness reports of __somebody who talks to shock jock DJs. (Like playmates or racists.)__ who eventually becomes infected."

ACTING:

Pontypool:
All of the actors here are immaterial except Stephen McHattie. While everybody seems to do a good job, McHattie's (of "Watchmen" and "Shoot 'Em Up") Grant Mazzy is a cocky bastard who just seems to fit the controversial DJ template to a tee.

McHattie commands the screen, which is good, because he's onscreen for almost the entire duration of the film. It also speaks to how underrated an actor Stephen McHattie is when he's able to carry an entire movie where almost nothing happens squarely on his shoulders.

Dead Air:
The only performance of note other than Bill Moseley's is of his on-air sidekick Gil played by David Moscow who looks distractingly like Kirk Cameron and acts distractingly like shit.

Otherwise it's all about Bill Moseley. While Moseley certainly commands the screen and arguably plays a shock jock flawlessly (which is helped by his trademark voice.) But I don't think Moseley could carry this movie on his shoulders the way McHattie did with "Pontypool." It is however worth note that Logan does more than Grant Mazzy.

WINNER: "Pontypool"


STORYLINE

Pontypool:
"Pontypool" is based on the novel "Pontypool Changes Everything" by Tony Burgess (Not to be confused with "A Clockwork Orange" writer Anthony Burgess) In this story our zombie virus is transmitted through human speech, only English in the movies, but it's implied it could spread to others as a Spanish speaking character seems to be getting the virus as well. It mainly targets terms of endearment.

As such, the zombies in this movie aren't really zombies at all. They're human beings whose speech has become muddled and made them so frustrated that they've been driven into a homicidal rage just because they can't express themselves.

It's a solid concept at first glance but the more you think of it the more problems it has. For one, it sounds kind of half-baked when it's revealed that our zombies are killing and eating people out of sheer frustration. Then of course there are the obvious questions of how a virus could transmit by airwaves rather than biological means. Also, why are some words more infected than others? And why only English?

The other big coffin nail of this movie is that it's understated. It prides itself in being minimalist, telling a story rather than concerning itself with being epic. Focusing on a claustrophobic area to create a scarier environment for the viewer. However, it goes a bit too far, we see nothing except a handful of zombies and even then we only actually SEE one. The movie has practically no onscreen violence. Now while I'm a fan of subtle horror, you do have to offer the viewer something to chew on and this movie just doesn't offer enough.

When people read or watch zombie apocalypse stories they want to see the parent that travels cross-country facing all odds to rescue their child, or the group of survivors roaming and looking for a safe haven. What they don't want to see is the person hiding under a pool table cowering like they would be in that situation.

To be honest, not a lot happens in "Pontypool" and that's the problem. It feels like a chapter of a much larger story and we're not given enough action or explanation make it whole.

Dead Air:
In "Dead Air" a virus is set loose in several major cities all over the country. The virus is set loose by a sleeper cell of Muslim radicals. Unfortunately this sleeper cell is easily the worst group of terrorists of all time and they manage to ruin everything.

The chemical causes the zombies be incredibly violent and makes them nigh-unkillable. On top of this a scratch or a bite will cause the victim to become infected. The zombies in this movie are also unique in that they attack primarily with their fingernails rather than their teeth.

While the Muslim terrorism plot is cliche and kind of dumb, the way the virus is played out is quite effective and gives a more realistic scenario for a zombie plaque and why anyone, even a terrorists would be willing to release it with great personal danger to their people as well.

"Dead Air" is also comfortable to venture beyond the walls of the radio station which does take away from the sense of claustrophobia but delivers a much more satisfying narrative. The radio station is right near ground zero for the virus and a lot of important events happen in or around the radio station. We're also given TV news reports to go along with what's happening that offer further depictions of the events outdoors. It's not as subtle but it doesn't go over the top so I found this take much more satisfying.

WINNER: "Dead Air"


Both films have their triumphs and their faults. "Pontypool" certainly uses an original idea that could have been explored further, but I feel that overall "Dead Air" is just a more effective and ,more importantly, entertaining.

I give "Pontypool" a 4 out of 5 and "Dead Air a 4 out of 5. Both are worth a rent, but "Dead Air" is slightly better.

WINNER: "Dead Air"

Antichrist (2009)


Directed by: Lar von Trier

Starring: Willem DeFoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg

Plot: A wife and husband in a cabin in a woods go on a magical violence-filled journey up Lars von Trier's ass.


You know what I hate about arty films? Most of them don't make sense, they're so wrapped up in symbolism (some of which makes no sense no matter how you look at it) and random bits that are inserted just for the purpose of looking arty. Then when the director is questioned on why his coming-of-age comedy features a scene with a CGI scorpion throwing a trashcan full of a hot dogs at a naked and bound five-year-old girl he can simply go "I'm an artist! It's not my fault you can't interpret such high art!" and I'm expected to get "emperor's new clothes syndrome" where I start pretending I understand the symbolism.

But what's worse than random bullshit that's supposed to mean something that clearly doesn't (*cough*Eraserhead*cough*) is a very straight-forward movie so stuck up its own ass that everybody who sees it misses the point entirely.

This brings us to "Antichrist" a film that's been labeled as a romanticism of misogny, a representation of the director's fear of vaginae, and a feminist victory anthem (whoever holds this opinion should seek help soon.) The thing is the plot, the symbolism, and the meaning behind the title are rather clear cut and self-explanatory and peoples' interpretations have really served less as an idea of the intentions of the movie and more as a Rorschach test showing how most of these people think.

Why does that guy's mask have a picture of a vagina shooting fire on it?

So the characters are He (Willem Defoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) a married couple who come under friction when their son stage dives out their fourth story window whilst they're busy having over-passionate indie-film sex.

She gets really fucked in the head so He takes her out to a cabin in the woods in an area called Eden (I smell allegory!) where She and their son had stayed for a long time before he become intimately acquainted with a sidewalk.

She's very troubled, but fortunately He is a psychiatrist and does what he can to fix her mentally. She slowly begins to be making progress and then is suddenly better, naturally he's skeptic as she went from fucking crazy to suddenly okay.

She regresses and begins raving how she and all women are evil and that all the horrible atrocities visted upon women throughout history were done by men that knew that women were evil. Then when she's confronted with an autopsy report showing that their son's feet were deformed and several pictures of him with his shoes on backwards she goes nuts and does things I won't refer to by name. They also hatefuck each other a whole bunch of times.


Now here's the clear cut part and there's some slight spoilers here but you'll live. The movie nowhere says that all women are evil, only that She is evil. She clearly suffers from a terrible case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, a cry for attention that often involves hurting others, particularly children, for the person's benefit.

Early in the movie She says He hasn't been spending enough time with her and if you watch closely the baby gate is unlocked, the window is unlatched, and the baby moniter is turned to mute. Of course later on we also find out she was watching as the baby swan dove out the window (for reasons I simply don't understand.)

She is not the literal Antichrist, but this is how She sees herself and by proxy, other women. This too is a cry for attention, seeing how she's getting nothing more from Him, she decides that to be reviled is better than nothing. Then of course her horrible "Misery" moment toward the end is the last step in keeping him around in much the same way deforming her son's feet was..

Now of course where shit gets complicated is the appearance of 3 animals that represent 3 parts of dealing with death. A fox, a bird, and a deer. He sees all 3 of these, and the fox famously says "Chaos Reigns" at the end of Act 2. Many interpreted this and the weird as fuck epilogue as supernatural but I took it as Him going crazy. He watched his son die too and it wasn't just Her who was under severe mental strain (one would argue that she wasn't under any as she was crazy to begin with.)

He even sees these animals represented as star constellations at the end of the movie and says "There are no such constellations." As such, there are no animals, they're extensions of His mind helping him to figure things out and understand how messed up She really is. Some may see the ending as misogniystic but honestly She really leaves Him no choice. But ultimately this is a self-contained story having to do with one woman and one man, not all men and all women.

She is evil, She is the "Antichrist" in her eyes and she wants Him who She sees as good to kill what is evil. Of course all the extra artsy crap is what muddles this message and it seems to be what everybody is getting hung up on. They can't seem to see the forest for all the trees.

"Antichrist's" pretentiousness is really its own worst enemy but I kind of think that's what von Trier was going for. The infamous is almost always vastly more popular than the famous and to be reviled gets a lot more attention.

Now don't get me wrong, this is a beautifully shot, well acted movie. But between the violence, the nudity, the explicit sex, and everything else at its heart "Antichrist" is just a 70s exploitation movie with delusions of grandeur.

I myself can't deny that it's not a "bad" movie but there's really nothing special about it other than the shocking and grotesque, and that makes it more of a novelty than a film.


It seems deep but it's really just a disguise for how shallow it is and once the shock of what you've just seen wears off it's just like any other violent "people in the woods" movie. I don't dislike it but ultimately I have no desire to ever see it again.

I give "Antichirst" a 3 out of 5. Worst kung fu move EVER!

Pandorum (2009)


Directed by: Christian Alvart

Starring: Ben Foster, Dennis Quaid

Other Actors of Note: Norman Reedus

Plot: Two astronauts awaken in a hyper-sleep chamber aboard a seemingly abandoned spacecraft. It's pitch black, they are disoriented, and the only sound is a low rumble and creak from the belly of the ship. They can't remember anything: Who are they? What is their mission? With Lt. Payton staying behind to guide him via radio transmitter, Cpl. Bower ventures deep into the ship and begins to uncover a terrifying reality. Slowly the spacecraft's shocking, deadly secrets are revealed...and the astronauts find their own survival is more important than they could ever have imagined. Taken from www.imdb.com.


If there's one sub-genre of horror I like more than period-horror (That's horror that takes place in the past, not horror involving menstruation) it's a good old claustrophobic space horror that isn't a sequel to a series of horror movies that previously took place not in space. (I firmly think that after they turned "Ginger Snaps" into period horror with "Ginger Snaps Back" they should make one in space and called it "Ginger Snaps Back to the Future")

Examples of these movies are "Alien", "Event Horizon", and the good part of "Doom" (I think there was a good part, for some reason when I think about that movie in-depth I begin sobbing uncontrollably and forget who I am for a month) so while I was stoked for "Pandorum" due to its cast and its premise I waited until it came to the dollar theaters because I've been hurt before and if I'm going to pay to be fucked by a cheap dirty whore of a movie, I'd at least like to spend less money for it.

"Pandorum" can best be explained as "Event Horizon" meets "The Descent" with a little bit of "Sphere" thrown in there for good measure. Our hero, Corporal Bower (Ben Foster) wakes up from hyper-sleep aboard a giant space ship, its 500-year mission: to boldy get the fuck away from a dying Earth and form a colony on an Earth-like planet several hundred years away.

Judging by the fact that Bower is alone, the power is frequently flickering, and the reactor seems close to meltdown then the people in charge of that probably did their jobs rather piss-poorly. Shortly after Bower wakes up, he's greeted by another officer: Lieutenant Payton (Dennis Quaid). It seems that both suffer from horrible memory loss from being in hyper sleep for God knows how long. So Payton sends Bower up into the ducts to figure out what's wrong and fix it.

But soon Bower comes upon a group of savage humanoid monsters that seem to gut and eat whatever human they come upon. They're fast, strong, and incredibly savage with no explanation as to what they are. Shortly thereafter Bower hooks up with some stereotypes and they all head off to the reactor to unfuck the ship and not get killed and eaten before everything assplodes.

Meanwhile, Payton gets visited by Gallo, another crew member from the bridge who seems to have a bad case of Pandorum (a case of wicked-bad "Ren and Stimpy" style Space Madness) a disorder which caused the officer on the bridge of a similar vessel to jettison the entire crew into space.


Ben Foster is one of the best and most under-rated actors working today and most of the reason why I give Shia LaBeouf a break for making "Eagle Eye." While the premise of "Pandorum" was interesting, it was Foster's name on the post that got my ass in the theater to actually see the movie.

Gladly Foster doesn't disappoint and delivers a believable and solid performance, it's just a shame the script doesn't give him much to do with is character. Bower gets kind of undercut as a character while Payton gets a shit-ton of depth. It's a solid role but I wish they would've given Ben Foster a bit more to chew on to make Corporal Bower a truly great and memorable character. As it is he's the most spectacular bland 2 an a half dimensional character in a world of 2-dimensional characters.

Dennis Quaid on the other hand doesn't quite fill the shoes of his character. Quaid gives a good performance but there's a lot more he could've done with Payton that it feels like he didn't. Payton undergoes a change midway through the movie and I felt that Quaid could have and should have handled the change better than he did. He doesn't come across in the way he should at that point. I really can't elaborate on it further without giving too much away, just trust me that you'll know it when you see it.


Early in the movie "Pandorum" ties into a lot of primal fears in much the same way that "The Descent" did. It ties into the fear of waking up in a strange place with no idea where you are or what's going on, the fear of the dark (the shadows seem to be a living thing, actively trying to keep us from the seeing more than a couple feet around the characters), fear of being completely alone, and an early scene involving Bower climbing through a ventilation shaft full of hydraulic hoses and getting stuck had my non-claustrophobic self squirming uncomfortably.

Unfortunately halfway into the movie all that shit gets thrown out the window. Bower hooks up with 3 stereotypes, gets in spacious well-lit areas, gets all his memory back, and even his stupid fist gun that didn't work against the monster before starts magically working. This is when the movie tries to scramble to get the terror back and starts playing up the monsters which aren't scary anymore now that you've seen them in plain view several times and moving forward some sort of half-baked mindfuck angle.

Unfortunately neither of these things are even slightly scary and managed to be less creepy than "Ghosts of Mars" in my eyes. It also seems to try and make us think that the monsters are all hallucinations and results of Pandorum but that idea has more plot holes than the plot of "High Tension" which is probably why it doesn't try very hard to convince us and ultimately just gives up altogether. Then we're treated to some kind of "Twilight Zone" meets "Planet of the Apes" reveal and the movie ends.

I'm told that "Pandorum" is part one of a trilogy but I really don't understand how that could happen unless they want to pull a "Chronicles of Riddick." Which, given the name of said trick, should signify that that's a terrible idea.

Of note is the fact that Paul W.S. Anderson (director of both "Event Horizon" and "Doom") appears in the credits as a producer. So anything wrong with this movie can probably be blamed on him (even if it's not actually his fault. He still owes us for "Doom.")

One final thing. I don't know who the sound editor for this movie is, but he deserves to be fired. So many times during the movie the ship's rumbling noises or the rave-metal soundtrack were louder than the voice track and you couldn't hear what the characters were saying. This might have been less annoying if it didn't seem to happen only when crucial plot points were being discussed. It was extremely sloppy, especially for a movie that, aside from the script, was very well put together.


"Pandorum" is by no means a perfect movie, it's certainly not as good as "Alien" or "Event Horizon" but it's better than "Doom." The sound design and the execution of the second half of the movie hurt things for sure, but they don't ruin what is a mostly effective horror movie.

I give "Pandorum" a 4 out of 5. It worth paying to see, just don't get your hopes up too high.

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant (2009)


Directed by: Paul Weitz

Starring: Chris Massoglia, Josh Hutcherson, John C. Reilly, Ray Stevenson
Other Actors of Note: Orlando Jones, Salma Hayek

Plot: A young boy named Darren Shan meets a mysterious man at a freak show who turns out to be a Vampire. After a series of events Darren must leave his normal life and go on the road with the Cirque Du Freak and become a Vampire. Taken from www.imdb.com.


Movies based on young adult books! Movies based on vampire fiction! Movies based on vampire fiction involving friendship, romance, and life lessons! Sweet Jesus, why don't I just put a gun barrel in my mouth now!

I was lured into "Cirque du Freak" on 3 levels of trickery: 1) John C. Reilly in a role that didn't look retarded, B) An effective trailer that made it look like a cross between "Little Monsters" and "Nightbreed" and III) I didn't know it was based on a series of books made for angsty tweens.

Now mind you when I found out the third fact it didn't bother me because it still looked better than "Twilight" and I actually sat through that. Also at least author Darren Shan had the balls to admit that his book was nothing more than fantasy role-playing with himself as the main character.

It's about Darren Shan (Hey, that's the author's name!) played by Chris Massoglia and his horribly convoluted journey from nobody to... nobody with fangs! So he and his rebel-without-a-cause best friend Steve (played by the ludicrously douchey and terribly untalented actor Josh Hutcherson) do some angsty teen shit, Darren gets in trouble so his parents make him promise to stop being friends with Steve, he agrees but continues to be friends anyway.

Steve gets very upset about this for reasons unexplained (perhaps he was planning to ask for Darren's father's blessing to marry his son, or perhaps he was just getting the menstrual cramps real hard) and makes constant snide remarks about being Darren's "secret" best friend. (Editor's Note: Guys don't care about this! Especially not teenagers!) Suddenly an elaborately creepy limo comes out of an inexplicable cloud of fog and drops an invitation at their feet. The invitation is to a freak show called Cirque du Freak. (Hey, that's the name of this movie!)

So they go to the freak show and we're treated to a bunch of mystifying acts of freakdom which is followed by the final act of vampire Larten Crepsley (John C. Reilly) and his amazing CGI spider that looks like the one that bit Spider-Man. We're now treated to an arbitrary flashback/monologue that explains how spiders make Darren tingle in his awkward teenage boy parts. He immediately falls in love with the spider and decides, naturally, to steal it.

As Darren goes to steal the spider he is almost caught by Crepsley, but hides behind a curtain and watches as Willem Defoe, playing some character that isn't important but does prove that he's a shoe-in for Gomez Addams if they ever want to make another "Addams Family" movie, enters followed by Steve.

Steve throws some generic whiny CW bullshit about and spills out enough angst to fill the mosh pit at a "My Chemical Romance" concert 3 times over. It seems he saw a picture of Crepsley in his "vampire book" and he wants to be a vampire because his mother is pregnant with cancer and his father beats him with a garden hose full of bees or some shit.

Naturally Crepsley denies, because Jesus there are enough whiny immortal losers running around sodomizing underage girls in the world. So Steve marches off in a huff, threatening to kill Crepsley. It is then that Darren makes some noise and runs outside where the scary limo from earlier pulls up and a creepy looking fat man urges him to get in.

Now being a wimpy white boy alone and defenseless in a shitty part of town he decides to hop in the care and meets Mr. Tiny (Michael Cerveris) and Murlaugh (Ray Stevenson) who probably has siblings named Murcry, and Murmaider. Some shit happens that really isn't important.

So Darren is keeping this spider in his locker and it gets loose, so naturally Steve tries to kill it in an inexplicably angry moment that seems to combine retard strength and shaken baby syndrome into some sort of mutant freak of acting. Naturally Steve gets bit, unfortunately the spider is like uber poisonous (and that's uber with an umlaut, not a regular u, that means it's hard core) and rather than giving Steve the power to do whatever a spider can, it gives him the power to die super hard core like that old guy in "Arachnaphobia."

So Darren comes to get the antidote from Crepsley. Crepsley agrees to do it on the one condition that Darren must now become a vampire because... that's never really explained. Darren agrees, he dies, comes back, and joins a freakshow.

But see, vampires are good folk that only take small amounts of blood from humans while the monstrous vampanese (a moniker that really only sounds increasingly more racist each time it's spoken aloud: I'm sure this was the least offensive name Shan came up with after his editor shot down his original choices of "Vietnampanese", "Vampanegros", and "Dirty Vampire Jews") appear to suck blood the old fashion way. Naturally Mr. Tiny makes Steve a Vampanese as well and it leads up to a climax that promises to be as extreme as at least 5 bags of Cool Ranch Doritos. (Maybe even 6!)


Chris Massoglia gives a bland soul-less performance only slightly more emotive than Zooey Deschanel's Stepford-Actress performance from "The Happening." It doesn't really help that Darren is kind of a dickhead and more than a little bit of a bigot. It would be really hard to like this guy if he was played by a good actor. As it stands, Massoglia just makes him suck all that much more.

Of course Massoglia deserves a big burlap sack filled with SAG awards compared to Josh Hutcherson. Massoglia's bad performance can at least be chalked up to that he's been in like 5 things in his career, but Hutcherson's been acting for a while and not only has a sub-par child actor matured into a major douchebag, he's matured into one that couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. While Massoglia gives a dull dispassionate performance, Hutcherson seems to actively go out of his way to suck.

Ray Stevenson chews the scenery here in ways you could never imagine. Seeing normally quiet and scary Stevenson play an over-the-top campy vampire lord is about as jarring as coming home to see a large man sitting at the table wearing your mother's flayed face for a mask and pretending that everything is normal. Though maybe that's the point, maybe the uncomfortable feeling you get from watching Stevenson ham it up is intentional and even campy he does a brilliant job (certainly better than he did in "Punisher: War Zone")

The big surprise, and the sole redeeming grace of this movie, is John C. Reilly. Reilly plays a character that is sarcastic, witty, deep, and sympathetic with the sort of grace that you never could have imagined an actor like John C. Reilly pulling off. He certainly proves that he's capable of pulling off serious roles even if this role suffers from Dennis Hopper syndrome (Great performance by an awesome actor playing a shitty role in a godawful movie.)


A brief nod to special effects here: Michael Cerveris' fat suit is so well done that I literally had no clue he wasn't really morbidly obese till I saw he was the same guy from "Fringe." I salute you, make-up department.

Now as you can tell by this review so far that's been dripping with thick greasy sarcasm, the plot is contrived, mostly pointless, and pretty fucking stupid. Not only is the friction between Darren and Steve unrealistic, it's played out with all the grace of an episode of "Degrassi."

Honestly, the big weak link her is the storyline. Instead of concentrating on the story of a newly-born vampire and his trials and tribulations with evil vampires the movie would have been far more interesting if it covered the members of the freakshow being set upon by the forces of evil. Of course, the screenwriter couldn't change the books but still. (Though I do understand an early script for "The Vampire's Apprentice" was about a 20-something loser joining a guild of elite assassins that get their orders from a magical loom that's translated by a swearing Morgan Freeman. Don't know what happened to that.)

Though if you absolutely have to keep the vampires (and the "Twilight" crowd seems to dictate that you do) then the freak show is immaterial. Honestly it's a meaningless talisman in the plot and really has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. The author and screenwriter should've just picked a side and stuck with it.

Of course, who am I to judge "Cirque du Freak" as the piece of shit I saw it as. Clearly this movie wasn't "for" me, it's for young adults (meaning 15-17 year olds, and immature 18-30 year olds) so naturally it's poorly written crap with only the vaguest hint of a plot and characters that could only mystify an audience that made "The Hills" a hit TV show.


In short, "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant" is a bad movie that is not without its charms (John C. Reilly and Ray Stevenson) that just barely seem to redeem its flaws (bad writing, barely-there-plot, terrible young leads) so while it's not utter shit, it's far from a good movie.

I give "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant" a 3 out of 5. John C. Reilly's performance manages to keep it out of the 2 out of 5 range by a hair. Plus hey, it's better than "Twilight", and that counts for something, dammit!

But hey, if you like this angsty vampire shit then you're probably already started furiously rubbing your damp crotch while your limited addition Edward Cullen vibrating butt-plug brings you to slow gothic nirvana. And hey, it's cool if you enjoy a bad movie, everybody enjoys at least one. Besides, if you're embarrassed then maybe it can just be your secret best movie.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)


Directed by: Spike Jonze

Starring: Max Records, James Gandolfini

Other Actors of Note: Mark Ruffalo, Forest Whitaker, Catherine O'Hara, Chris Cooper

Plot: An adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children's story, where Max, a disobedient little boy sent to bed without his supper, creates his own world--a forest inhabited by ferocious wild creatures that crown Max as their ruler. Taken from www.imdb.com.


Maurice Sendak's book "Where the Wild Things Are" is easily one of the best known and beloved children's books of all time. However the book is only about 10 pages long with most of those 10 pages being made up of pictures. So it was certainly a question of how one could take such a bare bones simple story like "Where the Wild Things Are" and turn it into a full-length movie.

We know how it starts, Max is a kid with some serious anger issues and behaves in a crazed manner whilst dressed in his wolf costume/pajamas. But instead of being sent to this room this time he runs away from home and climbs aboard a sailboat he finds and goes to a faraway island in the middle of the ocean where he meets the "wild things."


Max Records is a great little actor. I don't think any child star I've ever seen has ever been able to capture the feeling of what it's like to be a child like Max has in this movie. He captures the simple joys, the fear, the anger, the sadness, and the frustration of being a child and puts it out there for all to see. He really is perfect for this role and the scene where he comes stomping down the stairs in his wolf costume with his arms crossed it looks as though he's just walked right out of the book.

I've long said that it's hard to judge a voice actor's performance. Voice acting is honestly acting stripped down to its barest form. As long as you're a halfway decent actor you'll do fine and only truly masterful actors like Mark Hammil and Patrick Warburton ever seem to do anything spectacular with it.

That said, James Gandolfini gives a performance that easily earns the man an Oscar nod and makes you go. Tony who? If Gandolfini ever needed a performance to show people that he could play more than just a hotheaded mob boss or a hired goon, this was it. Gandolfini is alternately sweet, sad, whimsical, and even scary. Sometimes several at once. Max is a great character, but it's Gandolfini's Carol that really drives Max's character along.


You'll be pleased to know that the wild things are done perfectly. The perfect marriage of CG and classic puppeteer you never feel that Max is interacting with a CG model. The wild things feel like real breathing creatures and that's part of what helps make things so real. The film wouldn't have had the impact it does if the monsters were done strictly with computer animation.

The world of the wild things seems both desolate and beautific, like a world built on the ruins of another. It always seems the wild things are interlopers in a land that once belonged to a long forgotten race of people, or perhaps they're the last of a species of creatures having forgotten what they once were and where they come from.

It's clear that the wild things are very alone on their island, save for a raccoon named Richard, two squawking owls named Bob and Terry, and a giant dog that roams the desert. None of these new additions are given any explanation and remain as out of place and random as the wild things themselves.

For the most part the wild things seem content to be alone but at the same time they seem very sad. Only KW ever seems to be somewhat happy with her station in life and it seems she's more mature than the others; especially the unruly Carol whose tantrums and anger issues mirror and even overwhelm Max's own.

Each wild thing seems to represent its own mental stigma. Carol is anger, Alexander is never paid attention to by the other wild things, Ira is modest to the point of low self-esteem, Judith is jealousy, Douglas is shy and though he's the voice of reason he never seems to speak up soon enough, the only one that doesn't fit this mold is The Bull who doesn't even talk to the very end or have a proper name.

Perhaps the wild things are parts of Max's personality, though KW's representation of a child growing up while still trying to hold onto childish things in many way mirrors Max's sister from earlier in the film.

A lot is left to interpretation but the theme of the book (kid is bad, kid goes to magical faraway land, kid deals with monsters that are worse then he is, kid learns lesson and goes home) is intact, even if it's stretched so thin you can see through it.

What struck me is that "Where the Wild Things Are" is not a movie for kids. They will be either bored, depressed, or terrified. Of course maybe it's a bit forward of me and all of us to think this is a children's movie just simply because it's based on a children's book and rated PG is jumping to conclusions. After all, most of the kids who grew up with this book are adults now. Maybe this is simply just a film to hearken back to kid in all of us. And I must admit, watching this, I felt 6-years-old again.

However there are some pacing issues. The movie is slow and seems to take a little long to get where it's going. This wasn't issue for most of the movie, but certain parts seemed to be drawn out.


It's a long, slow, and painfully emotional movie that is absolutely not recommended for children. But it's still a beautifully shot movie with a lot of heart that will appeal the child inside.

I give "Where the Wild Things Are" a 4 out of 5. You have to see it at least once.