The Omen follows a fairly simple plot. The story begins when father-to-be, Mr. Thorn, receives an emergency phone call about “complications during childbirth.” After rushing to the hospital he learns that the child didn’t make it and young Mrs. Thorn was injured during labor and will not be able to have another child. Mrs. Thorn has not been informed and the Mr. Thorn is presented with a choice. Tell his wife the truth, crush her hopes of raising a family, and remain a childless couple. Or… adopt an orphaned son born only moments ago, raise the boy as his own, and never tell the wife a thing. They say the road to hell is paved with the best intentions. Apparently, the road to hell spawn is made from similar stuff. Events begin to unfold which lead the Mr. Thorn to suspect his surrogate child, Damien, is actually evil incarnate.

Sound similar to the original? It is. Exactly. Well, 97.5% anyway. This Hollywood remake isn’t the typical retelling, revision, revamp, or rework that I’ve become accustomed to recently. Movies like the recent King Kong and War of the Worlds stay extremely faithful to the source material while adding a bit of action here and removing a bit of cheese there. However, The Omen is quite literally a remake. As in “To make again.” As in “Why bother?”

I’ve seen the original a couple times and I enjoy it quite a bit as an above average Religious Horror film (a favorite sub-genre of mine) and as the classic predecessor to countless horror films that have followed. This new Omen is enjoyable for all the reasons the original is. It’s creepy. The Omen takes a subtle approach to horror when most other movies opt for gross-outs or the increasingly annoying sudden noise method. One piercing gaze by a stone-faced child can be a whole lot more unsettling than any rubber monster suit! Where the movie really excels is its use of symbolism. References to the Book of Revelations are scattered throughout the film, the infamous number 666 is used sparingly, large black dogs watch ominously from the distance, and steely glances from little Damien convey more hatred than any four letter word.

Going in, I had many apprehensions about the casting of this new version. I’ve seen Julia Stiles in several films and I always enjoy her performances, but I was unsure whether she could pull off the concerned mother role. After Phantoms and Sphere, I was confident that Liev Schreiber could do horror but not about his ability to play the leading role. Stiles impresses and Schreiber carries the movie without missing a beat. I even managed to forget that he was filling the very big shoes of Gregory Peck who played Mr. Thorn in the original film! The Omen’s cast is rounded out by Mia Farrow and Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick. Farrow (Rosemary in Rosemary’s Baby) was extremely sinister as the nanny and Davey-Fitzpatrick was a great Damien.

If it seems I don’t have anything bad to say about The Omen, it’s because I don’t. I can’t think of a single thing they could have done differently to approve on the original and, apparently, neither could the filmmakers! The Omen is a horror classic for a reason. It’s a solid film with fantastic subtlety and symbolism. This Omen tells the exact same story as its predecessor and while the actors didn’t bring anything new, they definitely didn’t ruin it either. Kudos to you Hollywood, you managed to not screw up a classic. Now, remind me again why you bothered at all? I recommend The Omen to horror fans, fans of the original, and film fanatics interested in a good remake. I do not recommend The Omen to people that hated the original, snobs that believe new can never be as good as old, fans of the original that don’t wish to see the same story all over again, or anyone that needs their films to be approved by their minister.

*A joke for the Christian Right that was horrified at the blasphemies contained in The Da Vinci Code: Check out The Omen. It follows your book much better!*

Final Grade: B (…or exactly what you rated the original)

The Upside: Symbolic, subtle, creepy, and very true to the original.

The Downside: Very true to the original. Is the movie really necessary?

On the Side: Rachel Weisz turned down the role of Mrs. Thorn due to pregnancy. Although Laura Linney, Alicia Witt, and Hope Davis were all considered, after a recommendation from Mia Farrow, Julia Stiles finally got the part.

Click here to check out the Trailer, and check out all of the film stats on The Omen here.

Related Reading:

• The Death of the Print Critic
• Movie Review: Diary of the Dead
• Movie Review: Be Kind Rewind
• Movie Review: Vantage Point
• Movie Review: Witless Protection
• Sundance Review: ‘Be Kind Rewind’ is Michel Gondry for Regular Folks
• Early Reader Review: Witless Protection
• Movie Review: Vantage Point

I gathered three workmates and headed for the movie that everyone’s been talking about. Three of us had already read the book; one hadn’t but knew the general idea of the story. It’s hard not to when a movie gets this much press, good and bad. Because of all the talk beforehand, each of us had different expectations and apprehensions about the film. And in the end? Well, critics can sometimes be very . . . critical. All four of us enjoyed the movie on different levels, but we all four still had a good night at the show.

Chances are . . . everyone reading this already knows The Da Vinci Code’s plot. You’ve all already read the book. Or heard about the book. Or heard about the movie. Or heard about the other book that this one ‘allegedly’ ripped ideas from. Well, you get the picture. However, there may be 20 or so people out there that have no idea what this little film is about. For you few secluded (or excluded I suppose) individuals, The Da Vinci Code is an adventure story. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is in Paris, signing copies of his new book on religious symbolism, when the French FBI requests his presence at a crime scene. It seems an elderly acquaintance of his was just murdered and his knowledge of symbols may help decipher a very odd crime scene. The victim seems to have spent his last moments leaving cryptic messages meant specifically for Mr. Langdon! Thus, a simple college professor gets pulled into a mystery that leads to a country hopping, clue following, code cracking adventure. All the while, he is being chased by the nefarious group that murdered the old man for the secret knowledge that seems intended only for the unlikely Langdon. Does this all seem too vague? Good. I’d hate to ruin a decent story for the 20 people that don’t already know about it.

I think The Da Vinci Code is one of the better book-to-movie conversions out there. The movie contained all the same clues, puzzles, chases, twists, and conspiracies that book had. The book never got encumbered with layers of conspiracy theory, the movie didn’t either. The pacing felt similar, the sense of adventure felt similar, as did the joy of a merry chase and the fun of learning secret knowledge. I think the film industry deserves huge props for staying true to the detective/puzzle/adventure feel of the book instead of attempting to jazz up the story for a more action/thriller theme. The Da Vinci Code has some great detective moments. The clues are really fun to follow. The secret revealed at the end is big enough to warrant the chase. The puzzles and riddles are fun to solve. The plucky heroes are likable enough that we hope they solve the puzzle and don’t get nabbed in the process. The movie stayed very, very close to the book. The book was ridiculously popular for a reason. It’s a fun story!

I should spend a little time with the look of The Da Vinci Code. Location shots were gorgeous and added to the feeling of wonder that was invoked by the adventure. Short flashbacks were well placed, well timed, and did a bang up job summarizing the characters’ back stories with only a tad of confusion in the process. The biggest change from the book was the special effects used to demonstrate Robert Langdon’s puzzling process for some of the clues. It was a bit unexpected at first, but by the end, I felt it was a very refreshing way of walking us through Langdon’s deciphering without resorting to long moments of watching him Tom Hanks mumble to himself.

My biggest nitpick with the movie would probably have to be the acting. It begins with an excellent cast playing less than excellent roles. I think the casting director may have stolen a glance at a list of my favorite actors for this one. The movie included powerhouses Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen, cult favorites Alfred Molina and Jean Reno, rising star Paul Bettany (his unforgettable role as Chaucer in A Knight’s Tale is literally the only thing I remember from that very forgettable movie), and the always adorable Audrey Tatou. Problem is, The Da Vinci Code really didn’t require any of this talent. The roles aren’t complicated. There’s next to zero character development and about the same amount of drama. The book was the exact same way though! With a cast of this magnitude and a story that was more about the puzzles than the people solving them, I can’t help but wonder if the actors received direction like “Now listen here Tom, don’t bring too much attention to yourself. We want the audience thinking about the puzzle box you’re holding, not about what your character’s feeling right now.” Should that be the case, they succeeded famously. I have a feeling The Da Vinci Code would have done better off with bottom rung actors playing these bottom rung roles. It was almost painful to see that much talent go to waist, but for some reason I can’t shake the belief that the director was ultimately responsible. Either way though, unexciting characters make for a much less exciting adventure tale. The one possible exception to all of this would have to be Ian McKellen’s Sir Leigh Teabing that easily has more depth and personality than any other character in the film.

The advice I always give: If the preview looks good to you, you’ll probably enjoy it. They’re specifically tailored for the target audience. If the trailer catches your eye, then you are probably that audience! Chances are you’ll dig the flick. Go with your gut, it usually won’t steer you wrong. I felt that The Da Vinci Code was going to be a good ride and that’s exactly what it was. I didn’t see anything particularly amazing on the ride, but when it was all said and done I did left with pleasant taste in my mouth. I would recommend The Da Vinci Code to Mystery fans, Detective story fans, Adventure lovers, and any one of those 20 people that are just dying to know what everyone else is talking about. I would not recommend it to Action fans, Christians that can’t take a joke, and Film Snobs that require top notch acting from every movie they see.

The Upside:
Intelligent, fun, just like the book, Audrey Tatou is still adorable.
The Downside:
The story didn’t require the actors to flex their muscles at all. Could have used a bit more tension and action to spice things up, but it had to stay true to the book.
On the Side:
During an hour long conversation with Producer Brian Grazer and Director Ron Howard, French President Jaques Chirac suggested Jean Reno should have a pay raise and that his daughter’s best friend, an actress, should be cast as Sophie Neveu.

Related Reading:

• The Death of the Print Critic
• Movie Review: Diary of the Dead
• Movie Review: Be Kind Rewind
• Movie Review: Vantage Point
• Movie Review: Witless Protection
• Sundance Review: ‘Be Kind Rewind’ is Michel Gondry for Regular Folks
• Early Reader Review: Witless Protection
• Movie Review: Vantage Point

Hot on the heels of incredible films like V for Vendetta, Lucky Number Slevin, and Hard Candy comes yet another revenge movie that’s, well, not so incredible. The worst part is that I was looking forward to a good thriller from the UK, but that was not the film that I got.

The whole experience began with a somewhat unremarkable storyline. A soldier returns to his home town to avenge the mistreatment of his mentally-challenged brother while he was away. Sound simple? It was. Although, it is important to keep in mind that a simple storyline does not necessarily equal a bad revenge film.

Normally, this is the part where I would elaborate a bit on the plot. This time, however, there’s nothing to elaborate on. Richard leaves town to go soldier, his younger brother Anthony stays behind. A group of recreational drug users and small time dealers decide to have a little fun with simple-minded Anthony while no one was there to protect him. Now that Richard is back, he’s making each one of them pay for what they did. That’s it!

Through a series of decently timed flashbacks, Dead Man’s Shoes elaborates on the exact crimes that were inflicted upon Richard’s younger brother, Anthony. The problem created by telling the story this way is two-fold. In the beginning of the film, I had no idea why Richard was harassing the gang of thugs because the film hadn’t told me yet. Secondly, Dead Man’s Shoes chose to enlighten me about the most grievous act done to Anthony only at the very end of the film. I had seen Richard kill several people for what seemed to be the only crime of pressuring little Anthony into smoking some pot. Now I could talk about the moral issues involved (or not!) with recreational drug use all day long, but I think we could all agree that talking someone into smoking weed is not a crime deserving death! As the movie continues, we learn that not only did the gang get him high, but they talked a girl into taking his virginity too! Shocking, I know. The bastards. And then we watch more people be killed for these crimes.

Are you beginning to see where the bad taste in my mouth originated? I spent over an hour watching a crazy soldier kill people for nothing more than sexing up his brother! It was disconcerting to say the least. The movie does redeem itself a bit in the end. The final few flashbacks finally show crimes that (for some viewers) may deserve death. The end of the film also includes an interesting fact, it seems Richard is a little torn up about playing his Spirit of Vengeance role. Learning this at the beginning of the movie could have created a powerful film about the inner struggle between justice and morality. Too bad that wasn’t this movie!

Aside from falling short on plot, action, and . . . well . . . good revenging in general, there is one nice thing I can say. Paddy Consadine’s performance as Richard was interesting. I’ve seen my fair share movies from the ol’ UK and consider myself quite a fan of the vast majority of them. Some how though, I’ve never seen him before. Was his acting superb or his emotion infinitely believable? Not really. But he’s got that mysterious quality that made him fun to watch and very enjoyable. I’ll be keeping an eye out for Paddy. (Now I just feel weird for saying that.) Consadine’s average performance was still not enough to save the below average Dead Man’s Shoes. It could have included better action. It could have given the audience some interesting moral quandaries ponder. It could have been a better revenge movie. But it wasn’t. I would recommend Dead Man’s Shoes only to such incredibly hard core fans of the lead actor that they absolutely have to see everything he’s done. Everyone else, STAY AWAY! You’ve been warned…

The Upside:
It wasn’t horrible…
The Downside:
What could have been a potent moral thriller fell very, very short.
On the Side:
When Richard breaks into the flat he spray paints “Cheyne Stoking” on the wall. In very sick patients, this is the name of the breathing pattern that is a sign of impending death.

Film Stats:
Starring: Paddy Considine, Gary Stretch, Toby Kebbell
Directed by: Shane Meadows
Writing Credits: Paddy Considine, Paul Fraser, Shane Meadows
Country: UK
MPAA: N/R
Run Time: 90 min.
Studio: Magnolia Pictures (official site)
Trailer

Technorati Tags: Revenge, UK, Thriller, Entertainment, Murder, Drugs

Related Reading:

• The Death of the Print Critic
• Movie Review: Diary of the Dead
• Movie Review: Be Kind Rewind
• Movie Review: Vantage Point
• Movie Review: Witless Protection
• Sundance Review: ‘Be Kind Rewind’ is Michel Gondry for Regular Folks
• Early Reader Review: Witless Protection
• Movie Review: Vantage Point

Remaining hyped up on creepy, psychological horror from seeing Silent Hill a week ago, I was extremely intrigued by the plot of a little Independent movie titled Hard Candy. It was the uniqueness of the storyline that drew me to theater and it was the same unique storyline that kept me glued to my seat for the entire film! I am quickly becoming a fan of Lions Gate Films.

In a nutshell, I gathered from the trailer that Hard Candy was a Hitchcock-esque thriller about a 32-year-old man that takes a liking to a 14-year-old girl he meets on the Internet. As it turned out, I was right. However, the trailer also led me to believe that this little thriller included a not so familiar twist. As it turned out, I was right again.

Hard Candy is the story of a professional photographer named Jeff Kohlver and his new acquaintance Hayley Stark, the teenage girl he’s been flirting with online. Jeff is surprised when Hayley asks for a face-to-face meeting so soon, but he still accepts without hesitation. After a few of Jeff’s casual mentions about going back to his place, he’s still surprised when Hayley hastily volunteers. A little more flirting takes place during the short car ride and a little more after arriving at Jeff’s place. It is here, 20 minutes in, that the movie takes a hard left turn. It quickly becomes apparent the Hayley has been planning this “casual encounter” for a very long time. Jeff, the poor bastard, has no idea what he’s gotten himself into…

It was this plot twist that made the movie seem so unique to me. After scanning the official site for the movie, I learned that this was exactly what the producers had in mind… “The initial inspiration for Hard Candy was a spate of real-life attacks that took place in Japan. Producer David Higgins read about the cases, in which schoolgirls turned the tables on older men trolling the Internet for underage dates. After one girl established an online relationship with a man, she and her friends would ambush him at a pre-arranged rendezvous. ‘It opened an interesting and different perspective on who was the predator and who was the prey,’ the producer recalls. ‘Then I thought: what if it was just one girl going after Internet predators? I’d never seen a movie about a 14-year-old vigilante do-gooder.” Neither had I Mr. Higgins. Thanks for making the first!

Hard Candy’s unusual plot is driven by its equally unusual leading actors. There are no Colin Farrels or Hillary Duffs here, the movie is helmed by Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page, two almost completely unknown actors. With 99% of the film consisting of interaction solely between Jeff and Hayley, the entire story rests on their performances alone. And they deliver! Patrick Wilson’s Jeff is at various times tortured, introspective, filled with rage, and pathetic. Yet, it was Ellen Page’s Hayley that was the true surprise. The character of Hayley was believable as everything from an innocent girl to vengeful torturer and everything in between.

The simplistic approach to film making felt like a good choice as well. The entire movie takes place in only three locations, and the coffee shop and car ride consist of a mere 20 minutes or so. The movie was not about exotic locals or a hit soundtrack and every behind the scenes decision emphasized this point. Hard Candy is about the battle of wits between to very different moralities. The director’s extensive use of close-ups are a constant reminder of just how personal this story is intended to be.

Hard Candy is an excellent depiction of a mental battle between predator and prey. The movie’s real strength is in the constant confusion over who exactly is predator and who exactly is prey. The film kept me guessing about outcomes and kept me thinking about moral repercussions just as a I would expect from any good independent movie. Director David Slade’s film has impressed me a great deal and I am now extremely excited that he will be directing the film adaption of 30 Days Of Night! I would recommend Hard Candy to Thriller Fans, Suspense Fans, Hitchcock Fans, and Indie Film connoisseurs. I would not recommended to Delicate Types that may find the subject matter too intense or anybody that desires more action and less dialogue from their movies.

The Upside:
Psychological, creepy, mysterious, intriguing, nice twists, and very well acted. Best antagonist I’ve seen this year!
The Downside:
Some of the head games may feel drawn out and slow for some viewers. While the movie is unusual, not enough of it (aside from Ellen Page’s performance) is amazing.
On the Side:
The title comes from Internet slang for an under-aged girl.

Film Stats:
Starring: Patrick Wilson, Ellen Page, Sandra Oh
Directed by: David Slade
Writing Credits: Brian Nelson
Release Date: January 2005 (Sundance Film Festival)
Country: USA
MPAA: Rated R for disturbing violent and aberrant sexual content involving a teen, and for language.
Run Time: 103 min.
Studio: Lion’s Gate (official site)
Trailer

Technorati Tags: Movie, Film, Entertainment, Internet, Underaged Girls, Stalking

Related Reading:

• The Death of the Print Critic
• Movie Review: Diary of the Dead
• Movie Review: Be Kind Rewind
• Movie Review: Vantage Point
• Movie Review: Witless Protection
• Sundance Review: ‘Be Kind Rewind’ is Michel Gondry for Regular Folks
• Early Reader Review: Witless Protection
• Movie Review: Vantage Point

I recall reading somewhere that Stephen King once classified two types of horror. The first type was mental or Psychological Horror featured in movies like Rosemary’s Baby or Jacob’s Ladder. The second type was the more physical, Gross-Out sort of horror used in 98% of the monster movies and slasher films. I’m having a hard time recalling any Psychological Horror films from the last 5 years or so. It seems like every film we’ve gotten lately settles for the much easier to pull off Gross-Out. Silent Hill, however, didn’t take the easy way out . . .

The film opens with an average suburban couple looking for their missing daughter. The young girl, Sharon, has a history of sleep walking and the parents couldn’t find her anywhere in the house. After a harrowing search, they finally find her only to realize that she’s still asleep and mumbling about a town called Silent Hill. Sharon has mentioned this place before and now her distraught mother, Rose, begins to think Silent Hill may be a secret from her daughter’s past. Determined to get to the root of suspected psychological trauma, Rose takes her adopted daughter on a trip to find the town of Silent Hill. Despite the closed lips of neighboring townspeople, Rose succeeds in finding Silent Hill. And much, much, more…

From the very beginning, Silent Hill grabbed my undivided attention and refused to let it go until the closing credits. I thought the movie was extremely well paced with the tension continuing to build until it’s extremely intense climax. Having never played the game (Yes, this movie is based on a video game by the same name. No, that doesn’t automatically make it lame. Bloodrayne did suck, but remember Resident Evil? That movie rocked!), I had no idea what was going to happen or how it was going to end. I was not only satisfied with the logic and progression of the plot, but the ending and wrap-up as well.

As Silent Hill was more location driven than character driven, I don’t have too much to say about the film’s cast. While the performances never blew me away, they never interfered with my enjoyment of the movie or my suspension of disbelief either. I will give credit to the casting director though, for placing normal looking actors in the movie instead of resorting to big names in order to sell more tickets. Perhaps this is only because none of the A-List showed interest, but I will hold that it was a clever casting decision in an effort to keep our attentions on mood and theme instead of a pretty face. Admittedly, I did smile I little when I realized that it was indeed Deborah Kara Unger being almost unrecognizable in the role of Dahlia Gillespe (the bag lady, you can’t miss her). Unger continues to show a knack for popping up with supporting roles in some of my favorite films.

Jeff Danna took heavy influence from Akira Yamaoka who designed the original game’s score. The result was an incredibly appropriate music score that opted for purely instrumental sounds 9 times out of 10. The soundtrack was laced with some of the creepiest music I’ve heard in the theater in a very long time. Since the town of Silent Hill was usually . . . well . . . silent, I can’t help but think a score heavy on vocals would have distracted from the mood.

The most powerful aspect of Silent Hill however, was entirely visual. The entire town of Silent Hill consisted of some of the creepiest set design, starkest palettes, and best use of CGI that I’ve seen. The Silent Hill of fog was absolutely stunning with entire sets washed out and ranging only from gray to even more gray. The Silent Hill of darkness was equally impressive. Fantastic CGI burning/smoldering effects were coupled with several moments of absolute darkness. I mean to say that the screen would go absolutely black for a few tense seconds before the image would return being lit only by natural sources such as a flashlight or a Zippo. It was also a pleasant change of pace to see most of Silent Hill’s ‘monsters’ being played by real people instead of computer graphics. The realism provided by them made the entire experience that much creepier.

One final mention goes to the ending. No worries, I’m not going to spoil anything for you. I simply feel the need to point out that Silent Hill’s climax has a different feel than the bulk of the film. Think of 100 minutes at a slow jazz concert ending with 10 minutes of pulse-pounding ROCK and you’ll get the basic idea. Some viewers may find the climax a bit odd, disconcerting, unwarranted, or just out of place. On the other hand, the rest (myself included) will find the end to be the welcomed release of 100 minutes of slowly and expertly built tension.

If you haven’t already figured it out, I liked Silent Hill quite a bit. I’m a big fan of horror movies and this one has been instantly added to my Top 10 Horror list. Though the Gross-Out was used at the end of the film, Psychological Horror was used to incredible effect throughout the rest of it. I rarely feel right using the word creepy to describe a movie because very few ever are, but Silent Hill was just that. And I can’t give enough credit to a horror movie that doesn’t resort to startling the audience with loud, sudden noises. That trick was tired years ago people! I would recommend Silent Hill to Mystery Fans (enjoy following the clues), Hard-core Gamers (impress friends by pointing out where the movie “got it wrong”), Asian Horror Fans (it’s based on an Asian game after all), New Media People (marvel at the impressive use of CGI), and Horror Fans in general. I would not recommend it to viewers that have difficulty suspending disbelief (you should really work on that) or Horror Fans that prefer physical scares over psychological ones.

The Upside:
Creepy, cerebral, and gorgeous in a way that only a horror movie could pull off.
The Downside:
Through the vast majority of the film, most of the action simply involves the main character getting away from things. The ending feels different than the preceding, this may be enough to leave a bad taste in the mouths of some.
On the Side:
Contrary to popular belief, Silent Hill hardly uses any computer generated imagery. The most notable use of CGI is the fog that drenches the town. Most creatures are live actors covered in latex and makeup.

Film Stats:
Starring: Radha Mitchell, Sean Bean, Deborah Kara Unger
Directed by: Christophe Gans
Writing Credits: Roger Avary (screenplay) Nicolas Boukhrief (story) Christophe Gans (story)
Release Date: April 21, 2006
Country: USA, Japan, France
MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong horror violence and gore, disturbing images, and some language.
Run Time: 127 min.
Studio: Sony Pictures
Trailer

Technorati Tags: Movie, Video Game, Adaption, Silent Hill, Popular, Cinema, Horror, Psychological, Entertainment, Opinion, Advice

Related Reading:

• The Death of the Print Critic
• Movie Review: Diary of the Dead
• Movie Review: Be Kind Rewind
• Movie Review: Vantage Point
• Movie Review: Witless Protection
• Sundance Review: ‘Be Kind Rewind’ is Michel Gondry for Regular Folks
• Early Reader Review: Witless Protection
• Movie Review: Vantage Point

I believe some people expect entirely too much from some movies. A viewer should expect nothing from a movie and allow it a fair chance to show you what it’s all about. Otherwise, feel free to be pissed that The Exorcism of Emily Rose turned out to be a crime drama and not the ghost story you were hoping for. That’s merely what you assumed the movie would be and now you’re mad because it failed to match your false assumptions! And we all know what happens when we assume . . .

I expected nothing more than 90 minutes of entertainment when walking into the theater to watch Slither. The preview peeked my curiosity, being a huge fan of the horror genre, and I was also intrigued to catch Nathan Fillion’s first non- Firefly role. I learned a long time ago to ignore the rants from the stuffy critics as well as raves from drooling fan boys, since I often disagree with both, and simply sat down and gave a simple horror film its opportunity to entertain and amuse. Slither did both.

Synopsis: Alien slugs begin mutating and zombifying small town USA.

Michael Rooker plays the wealthy Grant that is hated by everyone in town save for his wife. Grant and the misses have a bit of a falling out one night and he storms out on his own. In the woods Grant encounters a strange, slug-like creature, feels the uncontrollable need to poke it with a stick, is subsequently injected with a parasite, and begins undergoing a series of transformations.

Mrs. Grant notices his strange behavior over the next couple days and turns to her old flame for help. That old flame is now the town sheriff, played by one Nathan Fillion, who dismisses her concerns; until he sees exactly what Grant has become, that is. Now it’s up to him to figure out exactly how to deal this monster.

If the synopsis of Slither sounds campy, it’s supposed to. Slither is a modern day tribute to B horror films involving everything from zombies to alien invasions. Taking this into consideration, the logic of the film worked very well. There were no internal contradictions of the sort that often pop up in movies of this kind.

The scary moments were sufficiently tense and the film’s witty dialogue was surprisingly intelligent and funny. Slither also did a fantastic job with its action scenes as well as it’s gross-out scenes. Perhaps the most unexpected part of the movie for me, was the inclusion of a romantic side-plot involving the sheriff and Mrs. Grant. Although this side story was never more than an occasional aside, it was extremely believable and fleshed out.

Michael Rooker’s role as the mutated Grant was well played; he had a good mix of creepy monster and the struggling humanity underneath. Gregg Henry was also incredible in the part of the reviled town mayor. His was the character that I found myself constantly hoping would be the next to die. Finally, Nathan Fillion reminded me why I spent so many hours hooked on Firefly and Serenity. Fillion’s country sheriff was just charming enough to remind me of his lovable rogue from Firefly, while never feeling like he was playing that exact same character. For me, this was one of the most pleasing aspects of the movie. Firefly turned me into a fan of Fillion’s and I was very interested to see him do something else. This man has both talent and range, and mark my words, this man will go places.

The cinematography in this film was adequate; I can’t recall any awful edits or bad camera work but I fail to recall any that were particularly good either. The special effects were just as over the top as they needed to be. Slither did an excellent job with its gross out scenes. Aiming more for slimy than bloody, there were numerous moments in the film when the audience moaned and groaned at the ick on screen. As much as the ick made our stomachs turn, isn’t that exactly what we were there for anyway?

Overall, Slither was just a good movie. As a horror fan, I wasn’t blown away yet I wasn’t disappointed either. I laughed, I was grossed out, and I was satisfied with my movie experience. At times I was reminded of everything from Return of the Living Dead to Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I would recommend Slither lovers of campy horror movies, fans of Nathan Fillion, and anyone that can enjoy relatively mindless entertainment. I would not recommend Slither to film snobs or horror fans that want more dread and less humor.

The Upside:
Funny, icky, and Nathan Fillion shows some potential.
The Downside:
If you aren’t a hard core horror fan or if you desire only the highest quality performances and stories, don’t even bother. Slither plays to a very small niche of movie fans, people that love horror and people that love camp.
On the Side:
Referencing past genre movies, the Mayor is named R.J. MacReady, the same name as Kurt Russell’s character in John Carpenter’s The Thing and the local high school featured is named after Earl Bassett, the lead character in the movie Tremors played by Fred Ward.

Film Stats:
Starring: Nathan Fillion, Elizabeth Banks, Gregg Henry, Michael Rooker
Directed by: James Gunn
Writing Credits: James Gunn
Release Date: March 31, 2006
Country: USA
MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong horror violence and gore, and language.
Run Time: 95 min.
Studio: Universal
Trailer: Click Here

Technorati Tags: Slither, Entertainment, Film, Hollywood

Related Reading:

• The Death of the Print Critic
• Movie Review: Diary of the Dead
• Movie Review: Be Kind Rewind
• Movie Review: Vantage Point
• Movie Review: Witless Protection
• Sundance Review: ‘Be Kind Rewind’ is Michel Gondry for Regular Folks
• Early Reader Review: Witless Protection
• Movie Review: Vantage Point

Less than an hour ago, I filed out the theater with a friend and the rest of the surprisingly large audience for Tsotsi. My friend and I walked in silence for a minute. Finally, I turned to him and simply said, “Wow.” His reply, “That was intense!” To say that Tsotsi is an emotional film would be a gross understatement.

Synopsis: A tough-as-nails gangster finds redemption.

I’ll elaborate a bit for you… A young gangster named Tsotsi has grown up on the streets of Johannesburg, South Africa. He spends his time leading a small group of punks in various criminal activities around town. After a conflict with one of his subordinates, Tsotsi leaves his neighborhood in a bit of rage and ends up in a violent encounter with a suburban woman.

The encounter ends with Tsotsi driving away in the woman’s car and finding a secluded area of town to rummage through the vehicle for valuables. Tsotsi is presented with an unexpected surprise in the back seat, the woman’s baby. Lacking the callousness to leave the baby behind, Tsotsi carries it home with him. Throughout the next six days of his life, the plot’s duration, the young gangster is forced to face the consequences of his violent lifestyle and re-evaluate his own moral code.

The story of Tsotsi was more than entertaining; the heart warming, life-affirming segments were extremely touching and capable of restoring my faith in humanity. On the other side of the coin, the dark segments depicting the violence of ghetto life in Johannesburg were disturbing enough to make this viewer uncomfortable at times.

I think this depth of emotion is one of the film’s greatest achievements. When the story was suppose to shock and horrify, it did. When it was supposed to be beautiful or cute, it was more adorable than a puppy licking a laughing baby. When it was sad, it was capable of making a grown man cry. Or perhaps that was just me . . .

All of the core roles in Tsotsi were well above par. This is especially noteworthy considering that this was the first film for many of the performers, including the lead. The three characters most central to the narrative were incredible! Nambitha Mpumlwana’s portrayal of the young girl that Tsotsi begins to visit was spot on. She masterfully blended concerned mother, beauty (as in she who tames the beast), and a hint of love interest. The cripple played by Owen Sejake was equally memorable, especially considering his entire performance was delivered in a few short pieces of screen time.

Finally, Presley Chweneyagae’s first acting role as Tsotsi’s lead has cemented his position on this movie fan’s list of actors to keep an eye out for. He was fearsome, pitiable and lovable in turn (or sometimes all at once!) while being believable the entire time.

I don’t have much to say about editing, cinematography, and such. The visual quality of the movie was better than much of mainstream Hollywood cinema, yet nothing particular struck me as above average. Although, the locations used for the film were quite gorgeous in the starkness of their contrasts.

The soundtrack deserves a special mention. Containing a multitude of songs by South Africa’s hip-hop superstar Zola; the score had me bouncing to some of the deep, tribal beats and I usually can’t stand hip-hop! The music selection was the perfect choice as a backdrop for both the location and the events.

It’s no wonder Tsotsi picked up the Oscar for Best Foreign Film this year. The movie fulfilled every one of it’s promises. It entertained and, to an extent, even educated. I was reminded of great movies like City of God and Amores Perros, and I would recommend Tsotsi to lovers of foreign film, independent movies, tales of moral conflict, and those interested in a peek at different cultures that is not always sunshine and roses.

The Upside:
Great story, exceptional performance by the lead, and a fantastic soundtrack.
The Downside:
The average movie goer may not be able to connect with the main character with his violent past. Also, the movie is subtitled, a warning to you “non-reader types” and of absolutely no consequence to the rest of us.
On the Side:
Zola, the hip-hop artist who lent so many great songs to the movie’s score, also had his first acting role in this film. He plays Fela, the other gangster that Tsotsi’s cohorts consider working for.

Film Stats:
Starring: Presley Chweneyagae, Nambitha Mpumlwana, Owen Sejake
Directed by: Gavin Hood
Writing Credits: Athol Fugard (novel) Gavin Hood (written by)
Release Date: February 24, 2006  (US and Canada)
Country: UK / South Africa
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language and some strong violent content.
Run Time: 94 min.
Studio: Miramax (US/Canada Distribution)

Technorati Tags: Tsotsi, Foreign, International, Oscar, Oscar Winner

Related Reading:

• No Related Post