Aaron

Rob Zombie’s follow-up to House of 1000 Corpses pulls off that rareist of treats: a sequel infinitely better than it’s predecessor.  Zombie drops the schlock and gore of Corpses, but ends up with a better (and more disturbing) film because of it.  In addition to three simply awesome performances from the leads, The Devil’s Rejects is a note-perfect love letter to the grindhouse cinema of the 70s.  The colors, the angles, the fades, and the music feel so authentic that were it not for the older faces of this film’s nostalgia heavy cast, you’d think you were in 1976.  Ultimately a deeply disturbing film about vengence and it’s consequences, horror fans should sit up and take notice of a film that reminds us that the scariest monsters of all never require CGI effects.  This is a masterpiece of it’s genre.

The Devil’s Rejects
5 Stars

Rob Zombie’s directorial debut was hyped as the film Universal Studios wouldn’t release, which perhaps gave it a bit more credit as a hardcore horror film than the resulting scattershot mess deserved.  Somehow or another Zombie has focused his vision to make a sequel that not only far surpasses it’s predecessor, but might just rank as one of the best, most artistic, and perfectly realized Grindhouse films ever made. 

Perhaps sequel isn’t a fair tag to bestow upon The Devil’s Rejects. Sure, the events portrayed in House of 1000 Corpses took place a few months before Rejects (though the characters looked thoroughly modern), and it’s with the same core of characters, but Reject’s shucks the cartoonish and over-simplified thumbnails of the characters and replaces them with living, breathing souls that you just don’t ever want to come across.  Sid Haig (Capt. Spaulding), Bill Moseley(Otis), and Sheri Moon (Baby) return as the members of the psychotic Firefly family, while Leslie Easterbrook (from the Police Academy movies, no less) takes over the Mama Firefly role from House’s Karen Black.  After an apocalyptic raid on the Firefly house, Otis and Baby attempt to meet up with Captain Spaulding while evading the relentless pursuit of Sheriff Wydell (William Forsythe in a career defining role), a man whose task one of both professional justice and personal revenge.  Along the way the Firefly’s abduct and terrorize a travelling Country & Western band (led by 70’s staple character actor Geoffrey Lewis), meet up with a immoral pimp (Ken Foree of the Romero classic Dawn of the Dead), tangle with bounty hunters (Danny Trejo and Dallas Page), and generally act as nasty and evil as the title suggests.  That is until Sheriff Wydell catches up to them to extract a vengence as terrible as any horror the Firefly family has ever committed. 

It’s run of the mill plot belays the sheer power and effectiveness of Zombie’s ability to perfectly capture his vision on film.  From the shot-perfect 70’s opening credit sequence to the various fades, transitions, and angles, Zombie has managed to do what Hollywood’s other 70’s obsessed filmmaker Quentin Tarentino cannot; make a homage film that refuses to wink to the audience with a ‘ain’t this hip’ perspective.  A soundtrack liberally peppered with the powerhouses of 70’s southern rock only serves to drive home the bastard Texas feel of the whole film, and I found myself in utter shock at how beautiful Rob Zombie made a film about nasty, torturous psychotics.  Horror and Grindhouse afficiandos will appreciate Zombie’s cast, which is chock full of genre and cult stars, as well as the various nods and subtle homages to some of cinema’s best horror moments.  I shan’t spoil them, as they add a level of enjoyment that is all it’s own.

Even more amazing than the look and feel of the film is the narrative feat Zombie pulls of by the tale’s end.  For the majority of the film you’re treated to the horror and destruction that results from the desperate acts of monsters with nothing much left to lose, and you’ll find yourself thoroughly hating the main characters of the film (as you rightly should).  However, once Wydell gets his hands on the Firefly family, his sense of justice has become an obsessive need to punish and obliterate the Firefly’s, making him capable of almost inhuman acts of barbarity and cruelty.  Zombie’s directorial coup is placing this horrible group of people in a situation so hellish that you find yourself almost, almost rooting for three of the most evil beings ever portrayed on screen.  That’s an impressive feat by any standard.

That not-quite-sympathy is helped along by the note-perfect performances by the film’s lead actors.  Forsythe brings a level of malice and intenstity to his performance that makes his previous tough-guy roles look like towel boys at the bath house.  Sid Haig walks the fine line between gleeful profanity and hair trigger evil that makes his character scarier without the trademark clown make-up.  Sheri Moon plays Baby like a psychotic elf just brimming with malevolant intentions, and never before has a director so lovingly showcased his wife’s finer assets with such abandon.  But the real treat here is Bill Moseley as Otis, who walks away with the best dialogue of the film all the while looking like some haggard ex-roadie for Lynyrd Skynyrd.  His soft and almost lilting voice provide a jarring juxtaposition with the intensely horrible things that come out of his mouth, not to mention his unspeakable capacity for violence.

There have been better films that have been released this year, to be sure, but I can’t think of a single film (and that is including Batman, Sith, and all the other nerd fests I’ve been drooling over) that I enjoyed more thoroughly than The Devil’s Rejects.  In all it’s bloodshed and depravity, Rob Zombie’s second directorial effort managed to be an almost freakishly unique film: one in which the director’s vision is perfectly coveyed on the screen unfettered by studio meddling or squeamish marketing.  It’s an unabashedly gleeful terror ride that might just be the first perfect horror film of this decade.

Richard Linklater takes the remake route with The Bad News Bears (a film that has been remade in spirit more than any other.)  Certainly more cuddly and PC than the original, this take is nevertheless saved by a pitch-perfect performance from Billy Bob Thorton, who is fast becoming the king of ‘lovable bastard’ roles.  Linklater resisted the urge to put any kind of twist or kitsch in his version, which faithfully follows the little league careers of a group of ne’er do wells and losers who are cajoled, cat called, and coerced into near greatness by their booze-hound coach (Thorton).  A feel good, if forgettable, film, Bad News Bears is at least good enough to deliver the laughs at a brisk pace, with many a laugh-out-loud moment.  Maybe not the best kids movie in the world, but family’s should enjoy it’s easy (and kinda skeezy) charm.

The Bad News Bears
3 Stars

Since 1976, nearly every kids-themed sports film (and the not so kid-themed Slap Shot) has been a take on cynical and wonderful Bad News Bears.  Let’s see: rag tag group of non-atheletes mentored by a curmudgeonly rascal with a past rise up against the odds with the help of a couple of ringers and sheer gumption.  Sound familiar?  You bet it does.  So when Richard Linklater announced his next mainstream project was a remake of the Bad News Bears, the most obvious question was ‘what’s the point?’.  After all, what ground was there left to cover after The Bad News Bears (1976), The Bad News Bears: Breaking Training (1979), and the Tony Curtis fueled Bad News Bears Go to Japan (1978)?  Well, not much at all, to tell the truth.

ZolarCzakl’s Take:

So director Richard Linklater has done another kids movie and get this, it’s another in a slew of remakes that Hollywood’s been pumping out lately. Fortunately for those of us who actually give a crap about what we watch, this remake of Bad News Bears is actually one of the better ones.
You all know the story (even if you didn’t see the original, trust me, you know the story): a ragtag group of kids that have absoutely zero skill on the baseball field come together under the tutlage of a craggy, drunk coach who at first doesn’t care but later learns the true meaning of something or other while the kids learn to play and most importantly, to love or something like that.
What makes this movie work, though, is the talent of Billy Bob Thornton. He, of course, plays the coach and has a million crass, sarcastic lines which are all actually very funny. Billy Bob has oodles of charisma and plays the ‘gruff guy with a heart of gold’ thing very well. In fact, I can’t really imagine any other actor these days pulling it off with quite the same skill and ease. He really does carry the entire film.
The kids, however, aren’t really all that special. Their lines generally aren’t very funny and their crass insults don’t really stand up to the humor that was written for Billy Bob. I don’t really see any of these kids breaking out and becoming great acting sensations, but I guess one never knows. That really isn’t apparent with any of the kids in this movie. I was also a bit disappointed with Greg Kinnear in this one. His character is the coach on the main opposing team and of course, he plays it as a real tight-ass. That’s really all you can say about it. Nothing great, just tight-ass. Well, maybe that’s all he can really do.

So let’s tick off that checklist: the story is stock, the writing is uneven, the characters sometimes do things that it seems they wouldn’t really do, and the kids aren’t that great. However, the movie was entertaining. Maybe Wedding Crashers blew a circuit in my brain. All I know is that I laughed, I was entertained, and I didn’t leave the theater feeling cheated (this would be the perfect opportunity to put in another slam at Land of the Dead, but… oh! Too late!).
I almost forgot, there was also some racism, sexism, and lots of cursing by little kids in Bad News Bears. And there really isn’t much of a moral. Really, what more could you want for a good, dumb summer movie? Go see it. Why the hell not?

Aaron’s Take:

Linklater proved he’s got a deft touch with mainstream comedies centered around losers (School of Rock and Waking Life. Oh wait, Waking Life wasn’t meant to be a comedy) so on the surface The Bad News Bears seems like a good fit for his talents.  But while we’re treated to profanity after profanity, what remains of this film is actually far, far less cynical or ballsy than the 1976 original.  The original film ended with the Bears losing, but instead of a ‘we learned how to be a team’ lesson the original team attacks the winning team in a free for all brawl. 

Sure, the kids swear a lot and get in fights, but where’s the beer swilling, chain smoking rebellion of Jackie Haley?  This time around Kelly Leak is played by a much more scrubbed and modelesque Jeff Davies, who looks disconcertingly similar to the middle chick from Hanson.  Davies only outcast status comes from his attempt at glowering and the fact that he rides a motorbike.  In this day in age, that’s conformity not rebellion.  Sammi Kraft has the unenviable task of filling Tatum O’Neal’s shoes as ace pitcher Amanda Wurlitzer, but while she doesn’t posess O’Neal’s sheer presence, Kraft does a passable job holding her own against Billy Bob Thorton. 

Speaking of Thorton, I must agree with my co-hort Tim that Thorton is the lynchpin of this film.  His easy take on the never-was coach who gets by on sleazy charm and drunken bravado just lights up the film with each crass and careless line.  As Bad Santa proved, Thorton has a a knack for making you like despicable characters, and Coach Buttermaker is no exception.  Thankfully he’s in nearly every single scene in the film, otherwise it’d be left to the barely sketched out remains of the cast.  Similarly to School of Rock, not much thought is put in to the other characters beyond their gimmick (One’s in a wheelchair!  One’s a spaz! One’s a nerd! One’s fat! One’s a burgeoning sociopath!), so once the film starts focusing on the team itself, the whole endeavor loses a little bit of steam.

But to be honest, I laughed quite a bit during Bad News Bears, both due to Thorton’s perfect delivery and the general tone of the film.  I’ll agree that The Bad News Bears is easily at the top of the list of recent remakes, but to be honest the bar ain’t set that high. 

More satisfying than this Spring’s Kicking & Screaming, and infinitely more entertaining than any entry in the Mighty Ducks franchise, The Bad News Bears should provide you would some good laughs and honest enjoyment even without the acerbic charm of the original.

Tim Burton returns to the world of Roal Dahl for a swing at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but bigger budgets (and bigger stars) don’t always equal bigger thrills and more engaging story.  While it’s a little more faithful to the original story, Burton’s need to push the weirdness eventually alienates us from the experience, which is handled with none of the awe and joy of the original.  Depp makes Wonka a stunted man-child rather than just a wildly eccentric man, which serves to make the film much like the confections of the story: sweet and enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable.

Charlie & The Chocolate Factory
3 Stars

Retooling a much beloved (if flawed) film is touchy business in any regard, but there are not many films as sacred to a generation as Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Having Tim Burton and Johnny Depps’ names attached may have lessened the worry factor, but Gene Wilder all but immortalized the role of Willy Wonka in the 1971 film version.

So how does Burton’s version hold up? It’s both better and not as good, to tell the truth.

In this adaptation (which is admittedly more faithful to Roald Dahl’s classic novel) we’re given a more complete look at Charlie (Freddie Highmore from “Finding Neverland”;) and his down-on-their-luck family as they eek by a tenuous existence in a ramshackle and leaning home. Charlie’s parents (Noah Taylor & Helena Bonham Carter) have to support both Charlie and two sets of grandparents (David Kelly, Elieen Essell, David Morris, and Liz Smith. All of whom manage to steal every scene they’re in), while trying to maintain high spirits and encourage their young son.

When the mysterious candy maker Willy Wonka (Depp) announces a contest wherein five lucky children will be allowed to tour his incredible factory, Charlie knows he has no chance of winning, as he’s only able to afford one chocolate bar a year. Any takers on whether Burton derails the universe by having Charlie lose out on a golden ticket? Yah, I didn’t think so.

Charlie and his Grandpa Joe (Kelly) get their chance to visit the Wonka Factory, alongside the gluttonous Gloops (Philip Wiegratz and Franziska Troegner), the overachieving Beauregardes (Annasophia Robba and the creepily great Missi Pyle), video-game fanatic Mike Teavee (Jordan Fry, who looks like a minature Barry Pepper) and his hapless dad, and of course Veruca Salt (Julia Winter) and her over-indulgent father (the great James Fox), each of whom is summarily dispatched by their own faults (with a little neglect and encouragement from Wonka) to the accompaniment of the song stylings of the Oompa Loompas (Deep Roy).

With the exception of a wonderfully morose back-story for Wonka, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory does do an admirable job of keeping faithful to the story’s origins, but strangely this film turns out much more light-hearted than the 1971 version. For all the technical achievements and storytelling improvements, this version also lacks a lot of the warmth and wonder of the original. We’re shown various wild contraptions, each making candy in a seemingly impossible way, but rather than focusing on the wonderment and awe they should inspire, each set piece feels more like background images which are given only cursory examination.

Charlie is much less an active protagonist once the factory doors are opened, pushed aside by the more colorful and obnoxious children on the screen. He’s there only to serve as a moral barometer and to reinforce the wonder of the Wonka experience. And of course there’s Wonka himself. Depp had some extremely large shoes to fill with this role, but rather than attempt to capture the benevolent lunacy of Wilder’s take, here Wonka is more an arrested man-child whose creepy mannerisms aren’t just some mischievous facade, but a reflection of a truly stunted being. With his CGI pasty face and flat out childlike manners, there’s no possible way his performance isn’t meant to conjure up a Jacko association.

Sadly, this time Wonka never really warms up to the world. True to Burton form, his weirdness is unchanged and uncompromised from our first encounter, much like the film itself. The real failing in this film is that it never finds a way to open up to the audience, as it’s too wrapped up in its own world to let us in for more than a peek. While many, many elements of this film easily surpass the original, the childlike wonder and sense of exploration are sorely lacking.

Still, even die-hard fans will find much to enjoy this time around, and only time will tell if this more modern adaptation will capture the imagination of this generation.

Sadly, Spielberg’s populist instincts are in full effect for the film’s finale (which in and of itself is a bit logic-defying), but it’s not enough to detract from the overall power and effectiveness of this very engaging piece of cinema. Even at his schlocky worst, Spielberg remains an absolute master of the form, and War of the Worlds might easily be the best film you’ll see this summer.

War of the Worlds
4 & 1/2 Stars

It’s been quite some time since summer blockbuster season was anything more than mindless explosions, but this year may mark the return of the engaging action film, with Batman Begins and Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds making big time entertainment both smarter, and more emotionally engaging than audiences have been used to.

Marking the fifth incarnation (book, radio play, the 53 film version, a low-budget source-faithful movie made last year, and now this version) of H.G. Wells’ invasion classic, Steven Spielberg brings the Victorian Era thriller into the post 9/11 present, but manages to stay true to the spirit and tone of the original. An improbably cast but still effective Tom Cruise takes the lead as blue-collar Jersey-ite Ray Ferrier whose parental weekend with his two kids (Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin) is interrupted by the arrival of an alien menace. Seeking only to protect himself and his children, Ray evades the destruction of his city and makes off for Boston, where his ex-wife and family are, dealing with panicked crowds, an unrelenting alien force, and his own sense of responsibility.

After it’s slightly awkward introduction of characters War of the Worlds soon kicks into high gear, with the jaw-dropping spectacle of alien machines rising out of the Earth to destroy everything in its path. From that point forward, you’re totally caught in the grip of a survival story that refuses to let up. Tense, panicked, and just brimming with the urgency of a family desperately trying to reach some kind of sanctuary, Spielberg has moved the focus and perspective of an invasion film from a world at war to one man in a situation he can’t possibly understand fully.

It’s a brilliant choice to limit the information we receive to that which Ray and his kids encounter, and it works to continually unsettle you. There’s very little exposition, no big speeches, and again and again we’re shown just how ineffective the human race is against such a superior force. Most importantly we’re show the destruction of a world through the eyes of a normal man for whom circumstance has forced him step up and fend for people other than himself.

The effects of 9/11 are all over this film, from Dakota Fanning asking a panicked Cruise, “Is it the terrorists again?” (Which, is exactly what a child would ask), to the handmade signs posted by the loved ones of the missing (and most likely dead), and most powerfully, to the equally charitable and selfish actions of people who’ve lost everything except the will to survive.

In an effective set piece (which nonetheless derails the momentum of the film due to it’s length), Ray and his daughter hook up with an addled survivalist Tim Robbins, forcing Ray to decide between fighting back at those who’ve destroyed his home and protecting the life of his daughter. It’s a tense and creepy portion of the film, and one in which you’re uncertain which direction it will eventually go in.

Sadly, Spielberg’s populist instincts are in full effect for the film’s finale (which in and of itself is a bit logic-defying), but it’s not enough to detract from the overall power and effectiveness of this very engaging piece of cinema. Even at his schlocky worst, Spielberg remains an absolute master of the form, and War of the Worlds might easily be the best film you’ll see this summer.