erico_77375 Blog

I'm Moving To Spout!

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Hello To Everybody out here in Spoutland. I'm glad to make you my new neighbors. After almost four years of writing reviews on Yahoo Movies (http://movies.yahoo.com/profiles/erico_77375 for those who care), I'm moving my reviews to Spout. I'm bringing my old reviews over to this site a little at a time, not to mention putting up new ones. I'll also be posting essays and musings that come to mind.

So consider this my way of bringing the proverbial laurels to what I hope will be my new friends here at Spout. And feel free to comment, critisize and generally shout back to me on anything that I write. I hope that my contribution will be of use to those people who love movies.

Also, if you live in the Houston Area, please looking into joining my group Houston Film Fanatics United. Anyways, I've got to run. More reviews to unload. Have a great day.

Posted Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:48 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

A-List Directors Grind Out Their B-Side Pleasures

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Grindhouse (2007)

We've seen great filmmakers stoop down a few notches to do movies that are a little under their talents, either for a quick paycheck or to do something just for fun. Directors Quentin Tarrentino and Robert Rodriguez are unique filmmakers thought, they've made art out of these sub-standard genres in earlier works. So seeing them play homage to the grindhouse expirience in Grindhouse is...well a little redundant. But being first-class arteurs that they are, it only means that their success is pretty much obvious, if only a little less satisfying. That's perhaps the only truly critical thing I can say about the movie. Otherwise, this is the hands-down clear-cut adrenaline rush to the back of the skull that horror and action junkies have been waiting for. It is the cinematic equivalent to chasing down an entire pot of extra-strong coffee with a can of Red Bull and Whoop-Ass Combined. And if you think I'm exaggerating, see it for yourself, but be careful, it bites back.

For those who missed the trailers and spots, Grindhouse is a double feature with several fake promos to make this not so much a movie, but an expirience. Planet Terror, directed by Rodriguez, is about a small Texas town overran by virus-plagued citizens while a handful of survivors led by the mysterious El Wrey (Freddie Rodriguez, no relation to the director) and the sexy go-go dancer Cherry Darlin (Rose McGowan). This movie plays out as an homage to Roger Corman and his protoges (some of which were James Cameron, Martin Scorsesse, and Ron Howard) with musical cues right out of John Carpenter's handbook. The story in Planet Terror is right out of these old B-Movie plots, masking ugly realism about Government cover-ups, medical paranoia, and general class warfare with zombies and over-the-top violence. Feminism is even rooted for by the lustuous Cherry Darlin, who stops becoming a victim when she looses a leg and gains an M-16 cannon that even Schwartzeneger would would be jeolous of. And just like those B-Flicks, it is so over-the-top that it looses it's meaning as the guns start blazing.

The second flick is Death Proof, helmed by Tarrentino, who isn't so much making a general homage, but seems influenced by those great chase movies of the 70s, of which the characters int he movie know all about. It is about the demented Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), who likes to kill women with his "Death Proof" car (of course, the only who doesn't die in it is himself). But his latest victims (Rosario Dawson, Tracie Thoms, and Zoe Bell), hold a vital secret that could be hazardous to his health. While most of this movie is about that great Tarrentino dialogue that would be cliche under lesser hands, most of it is not really important when the petal is put to the metal. But I will tell you right now, when they hit the gas, you'll be left beathless to the end. I will say that this move isn't so much scary outside of a strech of it with real life stuntwoman Bell dangling from the hood of a 1970 Dodge Charger. But trust me when I tell you that in no way is that CG or done at slow speeds, which gives this part more terror than any other part of anything I've seen in the last 10 years). But when you get to the end, you'll have so much adrenaline built up, you'll have to scream to let it out, I'm not kidding.

And of course there are those fake trailers which are really good. Two I will mention comes from other filmmakers. Rob Zombie's trailer is by far my favorite because of it's goofiness added with sheer joy. I could see him making this movie for real just to do it. This only makes me excited about seeing his "revisioning" of Halloween. And then there is Eli Roth's promo which proves to me without a doubt that he has to be the most twisted horror director working today (not exactly the best, but seriouly twisted).

It's hard not to ruin the fun by giving too much away, but I want to express that this is in fact the most fun I've had at the movies this year. But then again, not everyone is going to like this, especially those who are fans of Tarrentino or Rodriguez. This isn't prime material, this is their B-Track. They aren't paving any new territory, so much as bowing to the previous masters of cult cinema in their own unique ways. And I hope this isn't the last time that they do this. Like the Ocean's movies, I'd like to see them come back to it every few years or so and let off their steam with some more mayhem.

Acting-wise, I must make some mentionings. First Freddie Rodriguez has finally broke through his Six Feet Under persona and has now become what Kurt Russell used to be under John Carpenter; a mean and dangerous bad boy with more bite than bark. At the same time, it was nice seeing Russell bring back that bad boy attitude that he had left in the closet for 20 years (and yes, it still fits). I have slowly become a fan of Tracy Thoms over the last couple of years, and this shows yet again how diverse she is as an actress playing a trash-mouthed would-be victim to Stuntman Mike. And let's not mention Zoe Bell, who is much braver (or flat out insane) than I would be.

All in all, this movie is a real treat to those who are junkies for the genre. But don't expect excellence going in. This movie celebrates the imperfections, even to the point of fading and wearing the print out to the point of burns in some places. But what else do you expect in a place or a movie called a Grindhouse?

Posted Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:24 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

A Movie That Asks What's In A Namesake

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

The Namesake (2007)

There is something powerful about a name that rubs off on that who is branded by it's moniker. For me, I was named after legendary guitarist Eric Clapton, something that I hold with some pride. Others aren't so luck (think about all those boys named Sue). The Namesake, based on a bestseller and directed by Mira Nair, explores how one man's name came to be and what he does with it.

The movie is about the Gangulis, an Indian family in New York headed by Ashoke (Irfan Khan) and his wife Ashima (Tabu). They have two kids, Sonia (Sahira Nair) and Gogol (Kal Penn). The movie is a straight narrative that starts off with Ashoke's doomed train ride where he is given the idea to travel to New York from India, to his marriage to his wife. They eventually have thier kids, with Gogol being the oldest and most important to the movie. Gogol grows up caught between the world he has known in America and traditions of India. His first major conflict between these two worlds comes when he decides to change his name to Nick. He was originally named after a Russian writer that was one of his father's favorites. But to Gogol, it represents that he isn't entirely American which bothers him greatly.

This leads him into a relationship with All-American girl Maxine (Jacinda Barrett), which his parents tolerate but aren't thrilled about (mostly because it seems he seems to want to spend more time with her family than his). When tragedy strikes again, it throws Gogol into a tail-spin between these two opposing forces once more and overcompensates by giving in entirely to his traditions, getting involved with Moushumi (Zuleikha Robinson), a woman his mother arranges that he meets.

The movie is incredly hypnotic visually, a Mira Nair trademark with wonderful color schemes and character set-ups. But the biggest problem with the movie is that it doesn't choose a protagonist. One might speculate that the entire Ganguli clan IS the protagonist, but that is incorrect. We barely meet Sonia, we never get to know more about her than a slip here or there. The movie focuses more on Ashima and Gogol, but since these two characters really never bond to each other, the narrative never seems to gel perfectly.

Then there's the fact that the narrative is uneven, which is strange since it runs as a straight beginning-to-end narrative. At certain places, too many things are occuring at the same time, then a long period of nothing happening. The movie should have chopped up the story and began on the middle crisis while flashing back to the back story, making the final act into a epilogue. This movie is a perfect example how editing can change the tone and feel of a story.

Kal Penn's performance as Gogol is very impressive since he's usually does frat-boy comedies such as Van Wilder or Harold and Kumar (which I am one of the many waiting for the sequel). But he allows this character to feel a natural confusion as to what he should do as a human being and not just as a second-generation immigrant. We understand his choices even if we disagree with him. But my favorite performances come from Irfan Kahn and Tabu, who are absolutely wonderful together. They stay away from stereotypes and bring out two people we can see falling in love with each other. Tabu's performance is even more interesting since she really brings out the loneliness of her life with a bravery that most actresses cannot find. In my opinion, she's the Indian equivilant of Meryll Streep, if only a little more graceful.

As for Mira Nair, I'm both happy and disappointed in her direction. Maybe because I know she's capable of making this movie a lot better than it is. While my biggest problem with the movie is editing, she also forgets the first rule of storytelling; always know who your protagonist is. At points we know who we are following, but others we do not. This confusion takes us out of the movie, which hampers the entire expirience.

All in all, you might not see my complaints, you might find it endearing and triumphant. And you would be right. It is good. But here's the question, would it be better if Nair and her editor Allyson Johnson would have made the changes I mentioned? Either way, I recommend this beautiful movie in the name of good cinema.

Posted Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:22 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

Pregs and Dregs Get Their Due In Wonderful Comedy

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Knocked Up (2007)

What can be said about pregnancy that is both funny and scary at the same time? The best answer, of course, is that EVERYTHING about pregnancy is funny and scary. I think Judd Apatow understood this when he made Knocked Up, but I also think he understood that in those nine months comes a profound shift of character, the person you are before and the person you are after might be the same, but not for the same reasons. This isn't new territory for movies about pregnancy, but I think that most movies only look at the change from one perspective and not from two. The film's priority becomes mostly about the baby and doesn't observe to get to this new business that old business must be sorted out and put away, and usually while kicking and screaming.

Knocked Up gives us a very extreme case. We have Ben Stone (Seth Rogen), who just as his moniker pretty much puts it, is a stoner 23-year-old (who looks 15 years older and not in the good way) that keeps a house with a bunch of other stoners that live "the dream". Of course that "dream" is pretty much to run a celebrity skin website and smoke pot all day long. And then we have Allison (Katherine Heigl), the newly promoted anchor for E! News. They meet at an LA dive where she's celebrating and one thing leads to another and...well, you know where it goes. 8 weeks later, Allison is puking on James Franco's shoes. She reveals her condition to Ben and now comes the first of many huge questions. They turn to the experts; their parents. Allison's mom suggests abortion. Ben's dad (Harold Ramis in one of my favorite cameos in years)suggests that Ben clean up his act and get ready for baby. Needless to say, neither listens well to their parents. And then there's Allison's sister and brother-in-law (Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd), whose own marriage (with kids) are being tested.

While any other movie would keep focus on everything involving baby, this film does something different. In fact, the baby is the elephant in the room, but is also not the main focus. It's about these two people who have made this child and about manners and understanding. These are all good people (including Ben's stoner friends and Allison's over-hyper sister) who we really do like, even if they sometimes drive us crazy with their neurocies and lapses in judgement. We want to see a happily ever after, which is against what we're told is plausible. But the movie gives us a reason for hope.

And yet this movie is incredibly funny. There's high and low brow humor that isn't above a fart joke or below a well-scribed dialogue on the same level as Neil Labutte. Apatow understands language, especially the tricky tongue of the Nerd-Speak. And Rogen is his thespian.

Speaking of Seth Rogen, I must say that he's the perfect guy to be playing Ben, not only because of his roguish looks (there were prettier pirates in At World's End), but because we can feel a sense of goodness from inside, not to mention a charismatic charm that makes him an instant hit at parties. We need to feel that to understand how Allison (who looks like a movie star) would even consider wanting in her bed in the first place. Heigl allows Allison to feel all the delicate emotions of pregnancy without going into melodrama. This is difficult considering that she is having to choose if she wants an overweight, scruffy-looking loser to help her with this baby. But let's talk about Leslie Mann, who just is just an incredible second banana to the main action, really giving us an outlet of concern about what's going on. I have said this before and I'll say it again, a little bit of Paul Rudd goes a long way. Rudd just nails in the gut with his perfect timing and blazing wit. And the biggest surprise comes from Judd Apatow and Leslie Mann's kids Iris and Maude Apatow who are just as funny as the adults. If Apatow decides to do a children's comedy, I hope he uses his own kids.

For Apatow, he has given me a reason to hope about the future of comedy. His 40-Year-Old Virgin was pure brilliance. Knocked Up is just as inspired, maybe a little more in some places. His only problem is that the film is a little too long (I would have cut 10 minutes out, but which 10 mins is too hard even for me to answer), but there's no such thing as too much of a bad thing.

All in all, this is the movie outside of 28 Weeks Later that I can truly recommend whole-heartedly. And this is one that you will come out of that will make you smile, think about life and love and appreciate the kids you have. Or like the rest of us, appreciate that one day we might want to have kids of our own. Maybe.

Posted Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:20 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

Third Time Is Less Charming

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Shrek the Third (2007)

I'm starting to worry about the summer season and it's just barely begun. I was shocked when Spiderman 3 did all but belly flop into stupidity beyond my wildest imagination. But now we have Shrek the Third, which is a far cry from the truly fantastic previous, two. Granted, this isn't nearly as bad as Spiderman, but that's not something to be proud of. There are six great jokes in movie which are incredibly funny. Bear in mind that I actually had enough time to actually COUNT how many times I laughed. In a comedy, that's not good.

The story this time around has a few twists. Shrek is taking over duties as king while his father in law is looking towards that great Lilly pad in the sky. But we see early on that it's not dat good to be da king, or at least not for Shrek. When he is made successor primo when the king croaks (I'm sorry, I had to), Shrek has other plans. He decides to find Fiona's cousin, Arthur and encourage him to take over. But then Shrek is given a doozy of a shocker, Fiona's pregnant. Needless to say, fatherhood was the last thing on his mind.

On the other hand, there's someone else who would love to be king, Prince Charming. By instilling jealousy and petty grudges with fairy tale villains, he stages a coup to take the throne. He forces Fiona along with her princess friends into hiding while he hatches a lamebrain plot to settle a grudge with Shrek. By this point, Shrek has found the lanky, angst-ridden boy who would be king. And while the ideas of a kingdom might be great daydreams, the idea of all that responsibility isn't up to snuff. And on we go until we get the finale that, like the first two, ends in front of a crowd of onlookers, but this time feels forced and trite.

The biggest problem with Shrek the Third is that it lost it's satirical edge, neither making fun of fairy tale logic nor pop culture with the malicious glee that made the first two movies memorable. There are a couple of times that it almost goes the distance, one involving Snow White's unnatural ability to attract cute woodland creatures (and command them like X-Men's Storm). For the most part, the comedy feels strained and tired, like the creators have nothing more to work with and are wringing the last drops out. It was stated that Dreamworks wants two more Shrek movies. I'm hoping that after this one, they'll change their minds.

Voice acting has also gotten a little lazy this time around. Meyers, Murphy and Diaz all sound a little flat with little going for them. I hate how little they used Antonio Banderas and his character Puss-in-Boots (which I still state should have his own adventure). I loved how they brought in Eric Idle to be the voice of Merlin (seen this time as a hippie-schoolteacher who's kind of cracked over the years), but they didn't give him a character to really play around it. But I guess we should talk about Mr. Justin Timberlake. This year alone, I've seen him give pretty decent performances in bad movies (Alpha Dog and Black Snake Moan). I see in him a future as a truly fantastic actor with the right material and director. But I must say in all honesty, that voice acting should be etched out of his career. He is flat and unconvincing and takes me out of the movie. They should have modeled the character around Dakota Fanning (obviously making a gender change). Now that would have been interesting.

Don't get me wrong, kids will enjoy the movie. They'll get the fart jokes and the heavy-handed teen melodrama at its core. But when you put this beside the other two films, Shrek the Third is meek in comparison, a sour note that never quite sounds right. And even if you enjoy the movie, you'll have to agree that this one just feels strangely out of place.

All in all, most of you are going to see this movie no matter what I say. I don't blame you and perhaps you'll enjoy it more than I did. As for me, I'll remember my favorite ogre as I'm sure he'd been happy to be remember, left in peace in his swamp where terrible screenwriters and voice talent can't burden him.

Posted Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:17 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

Bug Will Have You Squirming In Your Seats

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Bug (2007)

What has happened the horror genre in the last 30 years? It seems that with the bigger role of special effects in movies, that imagination has gone out the window. In horror, that has become a fatal flaw since what scares us are those things that we don’t see, that we can’t possibly contemplate. This year alone has definitely been an eye-opening experience for me with this genre. First was The Host from Korea that still has one of the more exciting movie monsters in a very long time. Then came the brilliant 28 Weeks Later, which is one of the best movies this year. Now comes the old-school master William Friedkin taking on a low-budget horror film some 30 years after The Exorcist. His new film, Bug, is not just scary, but you are left with a creepy (and crawly) feeling up your spine.

The film is based on off-Broadway play by Tracy Letts (who also wrote the screenplay) and stars Ashley Judd in a career-defining role as Agnes. She’s a waitress in a dive out in the middle of nowhere Oklahoma. She lives in a run-down motel where every night she gets endless calls from someone who might or might not be her abusive ex-husband (Harry Connick Jr.). One night, she is introduced to a mysterious loner named Peter (Michael Shannon), a former soldier who just got back from the Gulf. Peter comes off polite and quiet, but also disarmingly off-balance. They start off as strangers and quickly become friends, mostly because Agnes hasn’t had anyone who would really listen to her and make her feel safe (which she’s in need of with those calls she’s getting). Eventually it becomes sexual and this is where it begins. Peter complains of a bug bite, and shows her a bug that she initially can’t see. He starts looking for others, and find them all over her bed. She begins to see them for herself at this point.

At this point it needs to be said that this story takes on a three-act structure, which is defined by the look of the motel room. Since we’re in the room about ninety-five percent of the time, this is very apparent. The second act has the room looking disheveled with bug traps and sprays everywhere. The easy question to ask is why not leave the motel if there’s a infestation, but you probably already know the answer. Peter is checking his blood for signs of these bugs, which of course he finds. He’s also having to square off with the ex, who is just as menacing as the phone calls he might be leaving. But now we have to ask who is the worst of the two? And of course no one can see these bugs but Peter and Agnes, who are also sporting sores all over their bodies caused by constant scratching and rubbing. This comes to a defining moment that we know is the point of no return before we reach the final act, when the room takes on it’s scariest form. By this point, we know that things will not end well, and even worse, they are oblivious of the lengths of madness they have slipped. When we reach the final painful monologue given by Agnes, we understand how poisonous Peter’s influence, but we also know that it was a poison she needed. This monologue is will make you laugh, only because the only option is to run screaming.

I have seen quite a few horror films looking for the things that only Bug delivered. Other horror films are too interested in physical violation, always being about a fear of pain or death. Bug is not interested in such things. It’s more interested in the emotional vampirism that leads to the likes of Jim Jones and David Koresh. Death and pain are temporary, if you look at the grand scheme of things, which afterwards comes peace. Madness is much harder to find peace.

Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon deserve special honors for their brave performances. Shannon skillfully allow us to see the sweetness of Peter, even in the throws of insanity. He allows Peter to be quiet and patient at first, until he feels safe talking to Agnes about his problems and his theories of the bugs. But it’s Judd’s performance that’s worthy of award consideration. We can tell even before Peter comes onto the scene that she’s been through hell already. As Peter drains her defenses, we believe that she truly begins to love him. And by the time we get to the final scene, she bares to Peter everything that is possible to bare.

William Friedkin has made a bare-bones film that does more to terrify and engage his audience than any horror film could even dream of doing since the 70s. His biggest weapon is patience. The first act is all about getting to know and feel for these characters before the first bug makes it’s presence. By not leaving the motel room for too long, we are confined to the claustrophobia of this situation. Beyond that, Friedkin doesn’t let his camera get tricky. He let’s his actors and Tracy Letts’ words project what he wants to say. And that’s all he should do.

All in all, it saddens me to know that for every one great horror film, there’s going to be fifty terrible ones. And here we have three of the best in decades. Already, we know there’s going to another Saw, another Hostel, and a remake of Last House on the Left. Torture has become the big thing now, which is disgusting and just sad. But it’s nice to know that there are filmmakers out there that know that real scares come from the imagination and that death is not something to fear, which was the real point to horror films. If only we can get these guys to make more movies.

Posted Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:12 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments