Film School Rejects

Rock, Paper, Scissors: The Next Big Thing in Sport Movies?

Kevin Carr — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:21:38 +0000

Here at FSR, we’re not just about throwing the spotlight on major Hollywood releases. We also like to give a nod to the indie filmmaker when we have a chance. That’s why we have loved the success of films like Paranormal Activity, which started as a grass-roots movement and became a national phenomenon.

The independent production The Flying Scissors is attempting to do the same thing, starting off with a college tour of screenings around the country. The Flying Scissors has been rolling through the American universities since the end of September, and it will be seeing a limited theatrical run in New York starting November 12.

The film is a mockumentary about a cut-throat Rock-Paper-Scissors competition and was produced for a price tag of less than $100,000. You can check out the trailer by visiting their web site at www.FlyingScissors.com. You can also find more information about the current college tour, release information and DVD details.

Will this spawn a sequel about a Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock competition? We can only hope so.

Review: The Box

Dr. Cole Abaius — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:16:42 +0000

I can’t imagine that adapting a short story that’s already been adapted into an episode of “The Twilight Zone,” and attempting to extend it into a feature length is an easy task. Especially when the original story has that built-in single-note ethical spin that seemed perfect for Serling and company to weave into their morality tales. There was a chance that Richard Kelly could have built a huge framework for The Box around a single ominous punchline. A chance. But to no avail.

A mysterious stranger named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) delivers a box to the doorstep of Norma and Arthur Lewis (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) and gives them the opportunity to push a button that will kill someone they don’t know and earn them a tax-free million.

The central premise of the film is a fairly fascinating moral question of how much another person’s life is worth and what lengths you’d go to set your finances in order. But that heavy lifting was really done when author Richard Matheson wrote the story in the first place. In fact, most of the heavy lifting of this film comes not from Richard Kelly, but from either the source material or the original episode. Adding onto the pile, Kelly creates a longer narrative about a middle class couple that spends too much money, drives a really, really nice car, and can’t afford to send their child to private school anymore on discount.

If it seems like I have little sympathy for their situation, you probably won’t either.

And really, without that sympathy – without a true question of what depths one would have to go to before they take someone else’s life – the rest of the story falls pretty flat.

It also falls flat because the acting from Cameron Diaz is about as good as a regional theater actress stumbling her way through a Tennessee Williams play. Her southern accent is atrocious and she delivers almost every line with a incredible lack of emotion. On the other end of the spectrum is Frank Langella who places a quiet, business-like creepiness (even if his CGI scarring helps him sometimes and hurts him in others) onto the table next his diabolical box. Marsden is also a stand out, a great actor in a good role who is only hampered occasionally from some flowery dialog that even he seems to get sick at the sound of.

I also feel compelled to mention the score because of just how incredibly beautiful it is. It’s strange and experimental, beautiful and haunting, but it doesn’t belong anywhere this movie. Even as transcendent as it is, it plunks down into inappropriate times during scenes that almost give a Ba-Bum-Bum! quality to some of the dramatics.

On the whole, the moments before the button-pushing question is answered aren’t played to much intensity. Neither is the rest of the film. It’s also a mess in the same way that plagues all of Kelly’s work and it could use a keen editing knife to help it make more sense. However, unlike Donnie Darko, Kelly seems desperate to overexplain and infantalize his audience. He comes off as if he believes he’s the first person to ever understand his primer on Sartre – the directorial version of the kid waving his hand in the back of your philosophy class just a little too desperate to prove he knows the answer. He achieves this hand-waving through far too many scenes of exposition for things which come naturally out of the context (and even repeats some of the exposition or has random characters enter a scene solely to ask a question that will lead to more exposition and then dip back off-camera only to be seen as “NASA Worker #2″ or “Reporter in back of room” in the credits).

Without those moments, and with some far better acting from the lead, the movie could have been a great, strange entry. Instead, it ends up being fairly tedious with some weird moments that work sincerely and others that really add nothing to the story or the characters (like an abandoned chance at salvation, and a moment where a character is in one place and then another through the magic of editing).

While it seems natural for any movie or story with a moral question at its center to leave audiences discussing the conundrum afterwards, my friends and I stood around in the lobby instead questioning whether or not we should have bothered going to see The Box in the first place.

The Upside: Some good performances from Marsden and Langella, and several scenes that are really rewarding.

The Downside: A muddled story that doesn’t line up, a score that doesn’t line up, and a director who can’t be esoteric without attempting to let you know what he means.

On the Side: Richard Matheson is still alive, so he can watch it!

Review: ‘The Fourth Kind’ Should’ve Been Narrated By Robert Stack

Brian Salisbury — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:20:50 +0000

With the Saw films firmly on the ice flow of sequels toward apocalypse, the question I keep coming back to is, “where are horror films going to go from here?” Saw, and its subsequent imitators, satisfied the bloodlust of modern horror audiences for a time, but the cycle of desensitization continues and if horror films are no longer striving to gross out the public, it is once again time for them to break new ground. It appears that horror is now targeting the fourth wall to achieve that purpose and The Fourth Kind champions the concept.

It strikes me as appropriate that this film should be released on the heels of the sensational Paranormal Activity. Both are movies that attempt to breakdown that invisible barrier of disbelief that detaches an audience from the terror on screen. Both claim to be based on a true story which, again, eliminates that safety net of it being “just a movie”. But The Fourth Kind takes even that idea to the next level by actually incorporating video and audio recordings from the actual incident into the fictionalized account starring Milla Jovovich and Will Patton. They are working so hard to blur the line between fiction and reality that there are literally moments when the line in the split screen dividing the two segments wanders to and fro. I have to admit, at first I scoffed at this concept. When Milla comes out at the beginning and informs us what we are about to see is both real and very disturbing, I thought I smelled the distinct aroma of a William Castle gimmick. To me, it felt like someone had finally found a way to adapt a segment of “Unsolved Mysteries” into a film. I actually kept waiting for the disembodied spirit of Robert Stack to pop up and narrate the events while standing next to a creepy streetlight.

But the fact is that the images in The Fourth Kind are among the most disturbing that I have ever seen. The film is about a psychologist who is convinced that several of her patients have been victims of alien abduction. They all report eerily similar symptoms and they are all having trouble sleeping though they don’t know why. Under hypnosis, they become shockingly unstable and exhibit a level of panic and fear like I have never seen. It’s actually in the hypnosis scenes, where we get to see the footage of the “actual” patients where the freakiest shit occurs. It was kind of like Paranormal Activity meets Signs, so do with that what you will. All I know is that, even as I sit and remember these moments, the hairs on my arms are standing at attention. I found it inescapably haunting and chilling like few other horror films can deliver.

I fear that people are going to get bogged down in the debate over how much of the footage is actually genuine and, indeed, if this entire story is fabricated. Personally, I think it’s completely inconsequential to the experience of the film. I honestly don’t believe the footage we are seeing is authentic, there are lines of dialogue that completely negate that, but that didn’t prevent me from sitting slack-jawed and bug-eyed at what I was seeing. In fact, I think one of the big problems with this film is how staunchly it proclaims to be real. The movie tries so hard to convince you it is legit, but then shoots down its own credibility with bad dialogue and a hoaky credit sequence featuring actual yokels calling 911 to report UFO’s. Riveting, if stupid. I think the film would have done better to tone down their assertions and let the audience decide how much they want to believe (even though the last line Milla speaks is “what you choose to believe is up to you). No Milla, don’t pretend you are giving us a choice after cramming picture-in-picture “evidence” down our throats.

The Fourth Kind is a solid film with some great scares and horrifying images. If the story is true, then it definitely deserved to be told. If this is all in the name of meta-horror, then we can still appreciate the artistry that went into crafting such a badass film. If nothing else, this will make you realize that anal probes are not the scariest part of alien abduction. Cue the “X-Files” theme.

The Upside: Really disturbing images that will prompt the perfect level of fright.

The Downside: Really should have just been a fake documentary; the facile assertion that it is a true story will be its downfall.

On the Side: The film’s producers went so far as to insert references to Dr. Tyler, who never existed, into websites such as the “Alaska Psychiatric Journal”. This film out Blair Witches The Blair Witch Project.

Ladies and Gentlemen, A Word from Werner Herzog

Dr. Cole Abaius — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:31:50 +0000

Werner Herzog is crazy and brilliant and German. He’s had a random and illustrious career which has taken him to South America, Bear Country, The End of the World and now lands him squarely in New Orleans. The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans – a remake that’s not a remake with a title that looks like it should either involve Martin Lawrence and John Cusack as buddy cops or be stamped on the front of a DVD in the dollar bin – already has buzz surrounding it because 1) Herzog has never seen the film his title borrows from and 2) there is some crazy shit in the trailer.

I was lucky enough to see the flick last week (to the break of dawn), and while a review is forthcoming, I thought I’d share some things that the esteemed director had to say on some of the more questionable elements.

Feel free to smoke from your lucky crack pipe either before, during, or after.

Or all three.

DIRECTOR WERNER HERZOG’S STATEMENT:

ON THE FILM’S TITLE AND SHOOTING IN NEW ORLEANS:

It does not bespeak great wisdom to call the film The Bad Lieutenant, and I only agreed to make the film after William (Billy) Finkelstein, the screenwriter, who had seen a film of the same name from the early nineties, had given me a solemn oath that this was not a remake at all. But the film industry has its own rationale, which in this case was the speculation of starting some sort of a franchise. I have no problem with this. Nevertheless, the pedantic branch of academia, the so called “film-studies,” in its attempt to do damage to cinema, will be ecstatic to find a small reference to that earlier film here and there, though it will fail to do the same damage that academia — in the name of literary theory — has done to poetry, which it has pushed to the brink of extinction. Cinema, so far, is more robust. I call upon the theoreticians of cinema to go after this one. Go for it, losers.

What the producers accepted was my suggestion to make the title more specific—Port of Call: New Orleans, and now the film’s title combines both elements. Originally, the screenplay was written with New York as a backdrop, and again the rationale of the producers set in by moving it to New Orleans, since shooting there would mean a substantial tax benefit. It was a move I immediately welcomed. In New Orleans it was not only the levees that breeched, but it was civility itself: there was a highly visible breakdown of good citizenship and order. Looting was rampant, and quite a number of policemen did not report for duty; some of them took brand new Cadillacs from their abandoned dealerships and vanished onto dry ground in neighboring states. Less fancy cars disappeared only a few days later. This collapse of morality was matched by the neglect of the government in Washington, and it is hard to figure out whether this was just a form of stupidity or outright cynicism. I am deeply grateful that the police department in New Orleans had the magnanimity and calibre to support the shooting of the film without any reservation. They know — as we all do — that the overwhelming majority of their force performed in a way that deserves nothing but admiration.

ON FILM NOIR AND NICOLAS CAGE:

New Orleans. This was fertile ground to stage a film noir, or rather a new form of film noir where evil was not just the most natural occurrence. It was the bliss of evil which pervades everything in this film. Nicolas Cage followed me in this regard with blind faith. We had met only once at Francis Ford Coppola’s, his uncle’s, winery in Napa Valley almost three decades ago when Nicolas was an adolescent, and I was about to set out for the Peruvian jungle in order to move a ship over a mountain. Now, we wondered why and how we had eluded each other ever since, why we had never worked together, and it became instantly clear that we would do this film together, or neither one of us would do it. There was an urge in both of us to join forces.

Film noir always is a consequence of the Climate of Time; it needs a growing sense of insecurity, of depression. The literature of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett is a child of the Great Depression, with film noir as its sibling. I sensed something coming in the months leading up to the making of the film: a breakdown which was so obvious in New Orleans, and half a year before finances and the economy collapsed, the signs were written on the wall. Even films like Batman turned out to be much darker than anyone expected. What finally woke me up was a banality: when attempting to lease a car I was confronted by the dealership with the unpleasant news that my credit score was abysmal, and hence I had to pay a much higher monthly rate. Why is that, I asked — I had always paid my bills, I had never owed money to anyone. That was exactly my problem: I had never borrowed money, had hardly ever used a credit card, and my bank account was not in the red. But the system punished you for not owing money, and rewarded those who did. I realized that the entire system was sick, that this could not go well, and I instantly withdrew money I had invested in stock of Lehman Brothers while a bank manager, ecstatic, with shuddering urgency, was trying to persuade me to buy even more of it.

ON THE SCREENPLAY:

As to the screenplay: it is William Finkelstein’s text, but as usual during my work as a director it kept shifting, demanding its own life, and I invented new scenes such as a new beginning and a new end, the iguanas, the “dancing” soul (actually this is Finkelstein’s, who plays a very convincing gangster in the film), the childhood story of pirate’s treasure, and a spoon of sterling silver. I also deleted quite a number of scenes where the protagonist takes drugs, simply because I personally dislike the culture of drugs. Sometimes changes entered to everyone’s surprise. To give one example: Nicolas knew that sometimes after a scene was shot I would not shut down the camera if I sensed there was more to it, a gesture, an odd laughter, or an “afterthought” from a man left alone with all the weight of a rolling camera, the lights, the sound recording, the expectant eyes of a crew upon him. I simply would not call “cut” and leave him exposed and suspended under the pressure of the moment. He, the Bad Lieutenant, after restless deeds of evil, takes refuge in a cheap hotel room, and has an unexpected encounter with the former prisoner whom he had rescued from drowning in a flooded prison tract at the beginning of the film. The young man, now a waiter delivering room service, notices there is something wrong with the Lieutenant, and offers to get him out of there. I kept the camera rolling, but nothing more came from Nicolas. “What, for Heaven’s sake, could I have added,” he asked. And without thinking for a second I said, “Do fish have dreams?” We shot the scene once more with this line, and it looked good and strange and dark. But it required being anchored in yet an additional scene at the very end of the film, with both men, distant in dreams leaning against the glass of a huge aquarium where sharks and rays and large fish move slowly as if they indeed were caught in the dreams of a distant and incomprehensible world.

I love cinema for moments like this.

Editor’s Note: I do, too.

What do you think?

A Christmas Carol: ‘Twas a Spiritless Affair, Indeed

Brian Salisbury — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:03:11 +0000

Movies have supremely warped my conception of time. No longer do I judge the fragments of the year in terms of trite notions of spring, summer, fall and winter. Instead my calendar is notated with marketing strategies of major studios. For example, the beginning of the year is award season, followed by a dumping ground, followed by the blockbusters, another dumping ground, horrorween, and finally holiday season. Having just hurdled horrorween relatively unscathed, we find ourselves staring down the barrel of a number of films ready to bank on the inescapable jubilance of the next two months. For me, this is the cinematic season that garners the highest level of concern. The thing is there are very few holiday films that I watch on a regular basis that were released after 1987. Elf would be an exception to that block given that I find it to be a pitch perfect holiday film that captures the child-like wonder of the season and is destined to be a classic. But for every Elf or Love Actually we’ve gotten over the last decade, we’ve had to suffer through a dozen Christmas with the Cranks and a smattering of Jingle All the Way’s. So when I found out that Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol was getting yet another film adaptation, I cringed. However when I heard it was going to be an animated, 3-D spectacle directed by Robert Zemeckis, my interest was officially piqued.

I am not going to waste time describing the plot of this film because if you don’t know it by now, I have serious cause to doubt your status as a citizen of Earth; you goddamned toaster! Sufficed to say, there are elements in this particular adaptation that are more faithful to Dickens’ classic unseen in most versions. Jim Carrey steps into the role of Ebenezer Scrooge while the supporting cast is stacked with some truly fine actors: Robin Wright-Penn, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, and Gary Oldman. Oh, and Carey Elwes is also in this. I am also not going to judge the optical quality of the 3-D because I believe the theater in which I saw it did not offer the best environment for full appreciation. I just don’t think it would be an objective analysis.

Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol is a mess. I’m sorry to write those words. It’s a rehashing of something we’ve seen time and time again…for the most part. As I mentioned before, there are elements included that offer a more honest interpretation of Dickens, but while that is respectable, it also destroys the pacing and flow of the film. I applaud Zemeckis (who also adapted the story for the screen) for including the more horrific elements of what was essential a Victorian-era ghost story. But why then temper that with an over-the-top abandon of intelligence by making your inexplicably shrunken Scrooge surf an icicle down a roof? When the film is faithful, it is equal parts boring and incomprehensible. When it deviates from the book and tries to add something fresh, it is mind-numbingly ridiculous. I can understand adding a measure of whimsy in order to market this as a family film, but the horrific elements will assuredly incite tears and nightmares from younger audience members anyway. I know this to be true, because I witnessed children in the theater seek refuge on the laps and inside the jackets of their parents.

Let’s talk performances, and by extension the animation of the characters themselves. Jim Carrey gives what is easily one of his worst performances to date. Don’t get me wrong, I really like Carrey in both his goofball and more pensive material, but he struggles in this. His voice work rings of an “In Living Color” sketch featuring a bad Scrooge impression. He delivers jokes in the quieter moments with so little skill that they fall completely flat and there was a thunderous silence in the auditorium each and every time. Judging by his lack of timing, you would think he had never before delivered a joke on screen; troubling considering the actor. I reject the notion that he was shackled by the old English text because the jokes that he fails to land are divorced from the archaic dialogues and are intended to juxtapose them. On the other hand, Gary Oldman’s performance is excellent. He brings a warm, unflappable optimism to Bob Cratchet and his relationship with Tiny Tim is heart-breaking. In a film in which I had no emotional investment, Gary Oldman’s performance made me want to cry. I would also be remiss if I failed to mention the spot-on casting of Bob Hoskins as Fessiwig; that rotund little madman is about as energetic as it gets.

I will say that most of the characters look fantastic; the special effects employed are phenomenal and there are moments wherein the line between animation and using live actors gets a little blurry. But unfortunately that artistry did not trickle down to many of the background characters. There is one scene in particular in which this is most jarring. During the big dance number at the Fessiwig party, all of the ancillary characters look as if they are wearing pig masks. Their faces are all overly rounded and the features are completely washed out. It is strikingly flimsy animation. And while I won’t judge the visual quality of the 3-D, I have to say that it is among the most gimmicky 3-D this side of My Bloody Valentine. Things that would not naturally be in the foreground are thrust into our faces in a desperate grab for reaction. 3-D does not have to be a gimmick in animated films and can instead add depth and scale to the story, a la Up, so there really is no excuse for the way it’s used in A Christmas Carol.

A lot of the elements added from the original text will come off as nothing short of bizarre. The ghost of Christmas present makes some portentous warning about trusting men of the cloth and has scary child zombies under his robes. Meanwhile the ghost of Christmas past, a candle, does this weird little dance where he shimmies his head back and forth for no reason at all. I don’t know if it was supposed to be funny or what, but again the audience was dead silent afterwards. Now, I am not sure exactly how much of that is from the original work, but most of the moments you will see that will have you scratching your head are from the Dickens classic; minus Jim Carrey’s ice surfing of course. These moments not only befuddle the audience but also suck the wind out of the pacing. They are like little speed bumps that jump up whenever the movie gets rolling.

But worse than that, the inclusion of the long-lost aspects of the story into the film forces well-known, often crucial points to be glossed over. It’s kind of Newtonian in that the classic bits and the relics cannot occupy the same space. The most offensive truncation is Scrooge’s tragic love story. The plot of the film literally fades from the first time they meet to their tearful goodbye. In the actual story, when they first meet, Scrooge is a jovial, caring lad with dreams and ambitions. When they part ways, he has become consumed with money and greed causing a rift between them. Zemeckis’ version offers no A to B progression for this. Suddenly the bright-faced, happy lad is a young miser counting money and railing about how he would rather die than be poor; quite a storytelling leap if you ask me.

All in all, A Christmas Carol offers some things we haven’t seen before, but at the expense of congruity and pacing. The animation is gorgeous in some areas and unforgivably lacking in others. I think my overall biggest beef with this adaptation is that it in no way got me into the Christmas spirit. I felt nothing, apart from a few brilliant moments from Oldman, and that is an enormous fault to assign to a film based on the novel that perfectly gives voice to the power of the season. This version feels mostly old hat with a few misguided attempts to reinvigorate the story. Parents will not want to take kids to this because of the more frightening material (with the added issue of it being right in their children’s faces) and adults will take one look at the trailer and write the film off as kiddy fare.

Daily Diversion: Titular Lines

Dr. Cole Abaius — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:13:25 +0000

Not a bad little showing here, but I’m missing where someone tells me to, “Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.”

What do you think? How many of these flicks have you seen? What’s your favorite?

The Slammin’ Salmon Trailer: The Movie is Better, We Promise

Neil Miller — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:34:56 +0000

Anchor Bay Entertainment has released the first official trailer for the upcoming Broken Lizard comedy The Slammin’ Salmon, which they will release in limited fashion in December. I caught this film when it made a stop here in Austin for the SXSW Film Festival in the spring. And for reasons unknown, this trailer does not in any way do it justice. The film is a bit dark, full of laughs and all of the inappropriate and meticulously random humor that we’ve come to love from the Broken Lizard crew (a la Supertroopers). This trailer however, seems to cheapen the film’s effect and relegate its funny moments to a series of gags.

So just keep that in mind when you check out the trailer and official synopsis below, both courtesy of Apple.

In the latest comedy from Broken Lizard, (the creators of Supertroopers and Beerfest) “Slammin” Cleon Salmon (Michael Clarke Duncan) is a former Heavyweight Champion of the World turned celebrity owner of a high end Miami seafood restaurant, The Slammin’ Salmon. A terrifying bull of a man, Salmon uses fear to rule over his misfit waitstaff (Broken Lizard’s Jay Chandrasekhar, Kevin Heffernan, Steve Lemme, Paul Soter, Erik Stolhanske, as well as Cobie Smulders and April Bowlby) and on this particular night, he takes his bullying skills to a new level. In an effort to pay off a gambling debt to the Japanese Yakuza, Salmon sets up a contest to ‘inspire’ his waitstaff to sell more food than they ever have before: the top selling server wins $10,000 while the waiter in last place gets served with a broken rib sandwich—courtesy of the Champ himself. Spurred on by greed and panic, the staff resort to backstabbing, bribery and indecent proposals in an attempt to upsell their patrons while simultaneously sabotaging their co-workers. As the hours pass, the dining room action becomes more frenzied as the contest escalates into a brawl for first place in order to win the money.

The Slammin’ Salmon hits theaters in limited release on December 11, 2009.

Exclusive Video: Gentlemen Broncos Orders Turkey Testicles

Neil Miller — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:14:49 +0000

This is probably the single strangest exclusive we’ve ever received (and for that matter, posted), but what the heck. It’s late on a Friday and we don’t have much else to talk about — we might as well give you a look behind the scenes of Gentlemen Broncos in which their props man orders very specific kinds of turkey testes for director Jared Hess. Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Spend a few moments of your life in cruise control below.

Gentlemen Broncos stars Sam Rockwell, Jemaine Clement and is directed by Napoleon Dynamite’s Jared Hess. It is in limited release now.

Dan Aykroyd, Anna Faris, Justin Timberlake and Yogi Bear, Oh My!

Neil Miller — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:57:17 +0000

Entertainment Weekly has uncovered the supposed casting for the upcoming live-action/hybrid adventure that will bring the lovable picnic basket thief Yogi Bear to the big screen. The Hanna-Barbera cartoon will be adapted into a 3D film by director Eric Brevig (Journey to the Center of the Earth), with a screenplay from Wild Hogs scribe Brad Copeland.

We now know who will voice Yogi, his trusty little friend Boo Boo and who will play a documentary filmmaker trying to get a glimpse of these two hungry bears. Dan Aykroyd will voice Yogi, with pop star turned actor Justin Timberlake taking his side as the voice of Boo-Boo. The lovely Anna Faris, seen most recently in the twisted Observe and Report, will play the film’s documentarian, a girl named Rachel.

The story will revolve around two animated bears — one of whom wears a collar and tie, but no shirt — who are the antagonists to one Park Ranger Smith. No word yet on who might play Park Ranger Smith, but don’t be surprised if it is cast soon. I’ve seen some predicting that Will Ferrell will take the role, but that’s too obvious. I’m thinking someone more menacing. How about Robert Patrick or the great Robert De Niro? “We gadda get dat fuggin’ bear…” No? Okay.

Filming will begin in New Zealand next month, with Warner Bros. targeting a December 17, 2010 release date. Now, please express your feelings about this in the comment area below. Also, what’s in that pic-a-nic basket?

Kevin Carr’s Weekly Report Card for 11.06.09

Kevin Carr — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:34:36 +0000

A CHRISTMAS CAROL

Studio: Disney

Rated: PG for scary sequences and images.

Starring: Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins and Robin Wright Penn

Directed by: Robert Zemeckis

What it’s about: If you don’t know this by now, you should be barred from the holiday season worldwide.

What I liked: By this time, you should know exactly what to expect when you get a Robert Zemeckis motion-capture film. Like The Polar Express and Beowulf, A Christmas Carol is heavy on the effects and virtual camerawork and relatively weak on the character and plot.

We’ve seen this story adapted so many times in so many forms – from feature films to re-tellings on our favorite 80s sit com – that there is almost no unique way to approach it. The uniqueness of this version is that the full-blown CGI extravaganza hasn’t been done yet. In this sense, it does work. The visuals are pretty cool and the IMAX 3D experience is a sight and worth it for no other reason that you won’t be able to recreate it at home.

What I didn’t: There are a lot of reasons to dump on this movie. If you don’t like Jim Carrey’s cartoonish acting, you’ll not like it in this movie. (Although I will admit that he is directed down in a good chunk of the film.) Also, because the movie is shot with motion capture technology, it allows Carrey to play all forms of Scrooge as well as the three Ghosts. Likewise, Gary Oldman plays several roles, including Bob Cratchit and Jacob Marley. Again, the coolness factor in this respect tends to overpower the story.

Movies like The Polar Express are famous for making CGI humans that are permanently camped in the uncanny valley. The human emulations have gotten better in this film, but they’re still in that valley. Most of the work has been done to make Carrey’s characters look more realistic while Gary Oldman just gives me the willies throughout.

A lot of people will say this version is completely unnecessary, and also pretty terrifying for a young child to watch, and they wouldn’t be wrong.

Who is gonna like this movie: Families… as long as they aren’t easily scared.

THE FOURTH KIND

Studio: Universal

Rated: PG-13 for violent/disturbing images, some terror, thematic elements and brief sexuality.

Starring: Milla Jovovich, Elias Koteas, Will Patton, Hakeem Kae-Kazim and Corey Johnson

Directed by: Olatunde Osunsanmi

What it’s about: Milla Jovovich plays Dr. Abigail Tyler, a psychologist from Nome, Alaska, who is investigating sleep disorders. After putting her patients under hypnosis, she discovers that these cases are possibly reflections from UFO abductions. The more she digs, the more she learns about the terrifying reality of abduction cases, which eventually hit close to home.

What I liked: I will admit that The Fourth Kind does capture a certain level of suspense and atmosphere. It’s pretty damned intense in some scenes, and the set-up is intriguing if not entirely thought out.

What I didn’t: The Fourth Kind really pushes the whole “based on actual case studies,” to a fault. It really rams this concept down your throat, going as far to presenting the video footage alongside the reenactments. Yet every time something interesting is happening, the case studies footage gets distorted so we can’t really see anything. Hmmmm… isn’t that convenient.

I like a solid alien abduction movie, although there are very few of them that have been made. This one just tries too hard. The set-up is interesting, having actress Milla Jovovich walk right up to the camera in an early scene and swear that everything’s real. But this hook is the only thing keeping the movie alive. All the other elements that make a movie good – characters, story, plot, empathy, heart and soul – are noticeably absent.

Maybe if rookie director Olatunde Osunsanmi had spent more time crafting a decent story instead of reminding the audience that these are “actual case studies,” we would have a better film.

Who is gonna like this movie: People who though Paranormal Activity was a documentary.

THE BOX

Studio: Warner Bros.

Rated: PG-13 for thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images.

Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, Basil Hoffman and Gillian Jacobs

Directed by: Richard Kelly

What it’s about: In 1976, a mysterious stranger shows up on a couple’s doorstep with an offer. They are given a box with a red button on it. If they push the button, someone they don’t know somewhere in the world will die, and they will be given a million dollars. The couple struggles with whether or not to push the button, which has greater ramifications on their lives – and the lives of everyone around them – than they ever would have thought.

What I liked: First off, let me say that this movie is not for everyone. It’s waaaaaay out there, and that’s saying something even for Richard Kelly fans.

The movie has a brilliant set-up, courtesy of writer Richard Matheson’s original short story. (If you don’t know who Richard Matheson is, he wrote about a third of the original Twilight Zone teleplays.) So, it’s not surprising that the film has a whole Twilight Zone feel to it. About half-way through the film, it starts to go bat-shit crazy, which might alienate some of the audience, but Kelly is fearless about this.

Ultimately, The Box is a bizarre morality tale that sets up a very slick atmospheric feel. It should make you think about what you would do in a similar situation, and it delivers a story that really isn’t like anything else out there right now… for better or for worse.

Kelly manages to capture the feeling of 1970s with the cinematography, production design, wardrobe and sound design. In a strange way, it feels more like a movie that was shot 30 years ago rather than in the modern era, and that’s really pretty neat in my book.

What I didn’t: I’ll admit this movie is not without its faults. Cameron Diaz is a beacon of bad acting in this movie, slathering on a southern accent so thick, you’d swear she was pretending to be from the deep south. Were it not for Frank Langella and James Marsden to temper her, the movie would crumble from an acting standpoint.

There are several moments in the film that drag, which seems to be a trademark of director Richard Kelly, but they only show up once in a while.

Some folks will take issue with the story and its Twilight Zone elements, but I was okay with them. The film kept me interested throughout, and that’s pretty rare for a movie to do nowadays.

Who is gonna like this movie: People looking for a different brand of thriller.

Review: Disney’s A Christmas Carol

Rob Hunter — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:07:26 +0000

My feelings towards Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol have always been of two minds. I love the tale from the wit and greed-filled banter to the ghostly apparitions to the grand redemption at the end. The same goes for the multiple film and TV versions of the story. I’m partial to the George C. Scott version from the eighties, but Scrooged and The Muppet Christmas Carol tie for a close second. The problem I have with the story though is that very same magnificent redemption I mentioned as loving not three sentences ago. I’ve just never been convinced that Scrooge honestly changes for any reason other than selfish self-preservation. Sure he seems concerned about Tiny Tim’s imminent demise, but it’s his own untended gravestone that really pushes him towards turning over a new leaf isn’t it? Now thanks to Robert Zemeckis’ continuing desire to avoid telling original stories in favor of digitally manipulated versions of older ones, yet another adaptation of Dickens’ tale is hitting the screen… but can 3D animation make it any more convincing?

I shouldn’t have to summarize the story of A Christmas Carol for you heathens, but in the interest of proper film review format I will anyway. Ebenezer Scrooge is a cranky, miserly, and rudely practical old man living and working in Victorian-era London. His view on the Christmas holiday can be summed up in his sentiment that those who celebrate the day with merry and cheer should be boiled in their own pudding and “buried with a stake of holly through his heart.” He’s visited on Christmas Eve by the ghost of his dead business partner, Jacob Marley, who was equally as cheap and unlikable in life as Scrooge and who in death must drag around the chains he forged while still alive. Marley warns Scrooge of three more spirits coming to haunt him and advises the old man to heed their warnings lest he end up with an eternal fate like Marley’s.

Story-wise there’s very little to review or criticize here really. Dickens’ tale is a classic for a reason, and you’d have to go out of your way to really screw it up (cough, The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, cough). Zemeckis wisely keeps his rendition very close to previous versions with their very precise structure of character introduction, ghostly visitations, and then celebratory redemption. The scenes you recall from earlier versions are pretty much all recreated here in beautifully done animation. The characters look great, but it’s the details of the world around them that truly astound. From the bricks and cobblestones to the fabrics in clothes and curtains to the visible exhalations in the cold London air, Zemeckis and friends have created a fairly impressive world.

I’m no fan of Zemeckis’ previous 3D motion-captured films, The Polar Express and Beowulf, but A Christmas Carol has somewhat redeemed at least one aspect of the format for me. It helps that the original story itself is almost perfect (motivational veracity of Scrooge’s life change aside), but Zemeckis has improved the visual style of his ‘actors.’ Both Polar Express and Beowulf overlayed their herky-jerky mo-cap with plasticine characters that exuded more style than humanity. Christmas Carol keeps the stylized visuals but has now managed to imbue some of the characters’ faces with real warmth. They’re obviously still not going for photo-realism, but the quality of these CGI creations no longer keeps you at arm’s length emotionally.

But it’s not all good news… The major misstep Zemeckis makes here in regard to the 3D animated format is his need to up the “ride factor” of the movie. Scrooge gets pulled through the sky above London a few times, and while it looks absolutely briliant and delightful each time it is done strictly for the effect. Those flights of fancy are obvious enough, but Zemeckis crosses the imaginary line during Scrooge’s visit with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Scrooge is shrunken to mouse-size and chased through the streets by Death’s horse-drawn carriage. Why? The phantom reaches for Scrooge several times, just missing him at the last second, and it makes no sense. The whole set piece exists solely for cheap thrills and laughs. Pratfalls, sewer runs, rat shenanigans… it all stands apart from the rest of the story and it makes you imagine the Disney execs with a checklist featuring a minimum number of action scenes required.

It’s obviously difficult to gauge the acting on display in an animated film, even a mo-cap one, but it’s easy enough to praise Carrey’s work here in his multiple roles. He brings Scrooge to life, but he also inhabits the three Christmas ghosts that haunt him. While the final spectre is mute and without facial detail, the others (as well as Scrooge) are all distinctly different creations. Carrey does such a fine job with the cantankerous and fearful Scrooge that I almost wish he would have played the character in a live action film instead. His best work in the film however is with the first two ghosts. Carrey’s Christmas Past is perhaps the creepiest non-horror film ghost I’ve seen since Ghost Dad. His face is recreated as a candle flame, constantly smiling, potentially unstable, and he speaks with a pitched Irish whisper. It’s more than a little unsettling at times. His Christmas Present thunders with a strong Scottish voice full of cheer, joy, and the occasional bits of fierce anger. All are Carrey’s creations, but they still each manage to be unique.

Carrey’s multiple roles impress and make thematic sense as Scrooge is after all being haunted by his own life, but the others who tackle multiple characters aren’t always as successful or logical. Gary Oldman plays Bob Cratchit with a mix of innocence, joy, and devastation, and it all translates well to the screen. He also portrays the ghost of Marley and the (unrecognizable) voice of Tiny Tim, but since there’s no narrative reasoning behind this it seems more of a ploy than anything else. His characters were different enough that it was more of an oddity than a problem, but the same can’t be said for Bob Hoskins. He plays Scrooge’s long-dead first employer, Fezziwig, but then appears later in the film as the husband of Scrooge’s cleaning woman. It caused a brief bit of confusion while I tried to figure out why Fezziwig looked like a hobo (and why he was still alive at all). Colin Firth, Robin Wright Penn, and Cary Elwes round out the recognizable cast. (Especially Elwes who’s very round indeed.)

Will Disney’s A Christmas Carol worm it’s way into your hearts and homes and become as much of a holiday staple as rum balls and spotted dick are now? Possibly, but maybe not. It’s fun, occasionally frightening, and often beautiful, while at the same time staying true to Dickens’ classic tale, but it also never needed a 3D update. Kids will be the film’s biggest fans thanks to the multiple whiz-bang-wow scenes, and while adults won’t be bored they also won’t find any more heart or Christmas cheer than we’ve already seen from Albert Finney, Patrick Stewart, or even Bill Murray. Because as good as it looks it’s still artificial when compared to real flesh and blood actors portraying real joy and tear-filled emotions. Which should answer the question as to whether or not this new Scrooge’s redemption is any more believable…

The Upside: 3D effects are more about texture and depth than obvious thrusts towards the audience; ghosts are sufficiently spooky; animation is sharp, detailed, and stylized; has a few laughs

The Downside: segment where Scrooge shrinks seems designed purely to add more “ride” scenes and physical comedy; dual use of an obvious Bob Hoskins caused minor confusion

On the Side: A species of snail native to Fiji was named Ba humbugi upon it’s discovery in 1976.

30 Rock Review: Audition Day

Jim Rohner — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:00:08 +0000

Episode: “Audition Day” (Season Four, Episode 4)

Synopsis: Liz and Pete have discovered the talent they want to hire for TGS and plan to dupe Jack into hiring him, but when Jenna discovers that the lead candidate is an actor she dislikes, she and a paranoid Tracy plan to find their own candidate. Meanwhile, after word gets out that Liz has allowed Dot Com to audition, all sorts of characters come out of the woodwork to apply – including TGS writing staff.

Review: All good things must come to an end. 30 Rock season four began with three straight episodes of absolute hilarity, but the streak has come to an end with a mediocre effort tonight.

The problem was not that tonight’s episode got away from what has made the show so great, but that all the pieces were in place to make a great episode and they were just executed poorly. There were multiple instances of jokes that fell flat because they were either predictable (”Because it’s going to be a disaster, like Katrina! You remember Katrina – that crazy girl from hair and makeup?”), missed opportunities for something more (”Back in Stone Mountain, even the mayor had bed bugs and she was a horse”) or oddly out of character (Jack’s beginning speech about people being robots).

The mediocrity of the humor is disappointing considering a lot of elements that made things so good in the first three episodes were present here: a team up of Liz and Pete (”Season Four”), Jack trying to reconnect with middle-America (”Stone Mountain”) and Jenna and Tracy trying to make Liz’s life miserable (”Into the Crevasse”). Additionally, Grizz and Dot Com are given some air time, but nothing exceptional comes from their interactions. I had high hopes for Dot Com’s tryouts seeing as there were two mentions of his playing Trigorin in “The Seagull” at Wesleyan, but that was a set up that wasn’t paid off very well. How awesome would it have been to see Dot Com as a regular cast member if he was hired for the TGS crew?

The auditions in general, though, were a series of “eh” moments. Sure it’s kind of funny to see a fat black girl eating a donut for her act or to hear Frank censor-bleep his way through a standup act, but there was potential for more. After Toofer and Lutz combined for some wonderful moments last episode, their act – “Laugh of the Mohicans” – is cut off before they’re given a chance to try anything. On the plus side, Josh had a good moment when he almost cries breaking down his resume since quitting TGS – failed movie work, dropped by his agent, guy/guy web short – and the cameo by NBC’s Brian Williams was rather delightful as well.

Speaking of NBC, aside from another good jab at the network (”See, that’s exactly what I’m talking about – human empathy; it’s as useless as the Winter Olympics. This fall on NBC”), Jack is, in sharp contrast to just about every single episode ever, a weak point. From the beginning of the episode to the end, Jack just isn’t sharp. Part of the problem stems from a lack of interacting with Liz, which was gold just one episode ago, but I think it can be primarily blamed on his thinly framed thread, which sees him shunned for bed bugs (the relevant swine flu could’ve worked as a better ailment) and humbled by a robot impersonator he ends up hiring for TGS. Hopefully this ties into a larger theme of Jack learning empathy that carries through the rest of the season because on an individual episode level it’s just not believable.

Speaking of themes that carry through the season, do you think the execs at Cisco Systems come off as good sports or desperate in allowing their product to be lauded facetiously?

The robot’s hiring seems a bit throw-away, but its not falling completely flat must be credited to the intriguing twist of the episode. Jenna, convinced that Liz and Pete’s preferred comedian, Jayden Michael Tyler, is a deplorable jerk, does all she can with Tracy’s help to find someone better. The team up of Jenna and Tracy in this episode generates some good moments and it’s a delightful surprise when it turns out that not only was Jenna right the whole time about the impersonator Jayden, but that Jack doesn’t even care about him. Good to hear the voices of Martin Scorsese, Christopher Walken and Gilbert Godfried in the process, though.

Grade: C

Favorite Quotes:

[Liz] – “I’m sorry I doubted you, it’s just that you’ve never been right before. About anything.”

[Jenna] – “I know.”

The Reject Report Sings a Christmas Carol, Stares At Goats

John Cairns — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:51:10 +0000

Welcome to another Reject Report! As you can tell it’s November, Halloween is now over and Christmas is right around the corner. How do we know this? Because the Christmas movies have started with A Christmas Carol. We also have the horror flick The Box, the thriller The Fourth Kind, and the Oscar season movie The Men Who Stare at Goats.

So let’s get on with it. We start this week with The Men Who Stare at Goats, starring George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Spacey, Jeff Bridges and Robert Patrick . It’s freaky stuff about a journalist who ends up going to Iraq and meeting up with this former member of the U.S. Army’s First Earth Battallion, a military unit that uses psychic and paramilitary powers in their missions.

This flick rolled out to rave reviews at the Toronto International Film Festival earlier this year, and I expect it to do good business over a number of weeks, but probably not right away. It just seems like every Oscar-season George Clooney movie is guaranteed to make in the range of $10 or $11 million in its opening weekend and not much else. Anyhow, that’s my prediction: $11 million for The Men Who Stare at Goats.

Watch the Men Who Stare at Goats trailer:

Next is The Fourth Kind, starring Milla Jovovich, a sci-fi thriller about an ongoing unsolved mystery in Nome, Alaska involving alien abductions. Elias Koteas and Will Patton also star.

This is in slightly more theaters than The Men Who Stare at Goats, and I think it will probably make about as much money. I’m guessing only $10.5 million, though — I have a feeling Goats might sneak past it based on its word of mouth. Who knows, though.

Watch the trailer for The Fourth Kind:

Third is The Box, a horror flick starring Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as a couple who receive a box that has within it strange powers. It contains a button, and some mystery man arrives at their door (Frank Langhella) and tells them they will receive $1,000,000 if they press the button, but someone they don’t know will die because of it.

Well, I dunno if this movie is going to do well or not. I wonder if we are all a bit horrored-out after the run of movies we have had. I think Halloween is over and people want to move on with their lives, so I’m predicting $13 million for The Box.

Watch the trailer for The Box:

Finally there is Disney’s A Christmas Carol from famed writer/director Robert Zemeckis. It’s basically his motion-capture animated take on the famous Ebenezer Scrooge tale, and it’s in Disney Digital 3D and IMAX 3D! Jim Carrey plays Scrooge and other roles, and there is an all-star cast of voices including Gary Oldman, Cary Elwes, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn, you name it.

Whenever I hear that a movie is in 3D, I automatically bump that movie’s gross up a notch, because everyone knows 3D is a money train these days. I suppose it’s a little early for Christmas, but I remember what happened when that Vince Vaughn Four Christmases movie rolled out to a lot of dough. And I know this is a completely different style of movie, but I have the feeling that just having Christmas in the title will be enough for a lot of business. I am predicting $44 Million for Disney’s A Christmas Carol.

Watch the trailer for A Christmas Carol:

So there you have it. Also, I am predicting that you are finally going to see both Paranormal Activity and Michael Jackson’ This Is It start to fade at the box office. The Jackson movie has been in first place all week, and the Paranormal Activity phenomenon seems to have crested. I see both falling well back this weekend.

My predicted order of finish:

Disney’s A Christmas Carol $44 million
The Box $13 million
Michael Jackson’s This Is It $12.5 million
The Men Who Stare at Goats $11 million
Paranormal Activity $10.7 million
The Fourth Kind $10.5 million
Law Abiding Citizen $5.5 million
Couples Retreat $4 million
Where the Wild Things Are $3 million
Saw VI $2.5 million

And that is all for now! Back at the end of the weekend to see what transpires at the box office here at the Reject Report.

Fat Guys at the Movies Ep. 139 – The Fat Kind

Kevin Carr — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:00:17 +0000

On This Week’s Show: Kevin and Neil say good-bye to scary movies (well, not really, considering two are released this week) and decide to ring in the Christmas season early. They stare at some goats, grumble about not being allowed to open a box, visit the uncanny valley and debate whether Kevin is spoiling the viewing experience for The Fourth Kind. They also lay down a Fat Guy Five about awesome UFO movies, and Kevin gloats over Neil’s not-so-accurate box office predictions from last week.

Films Reviewed this Week: A Christmas Carol, The Fourth Kind, The Men Who Stare At Goats and The Box

Download this Episode

Episode Schedule:

Segment 1 [8:50] – Reviews of The Box and The Men Who Stare At Goats

Segment 2 [10:40] – Review of A Christmas Carol and The Fourth Kind

Segment 3 [12:45] – Box office gloatation and the Fat Guy Five: Five Awesome UFO Movies

Segment 4 [6:35] – DVD Round-Up: Neil’s picks are G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, North by Northwest on Blu-ray, Watchmen Ultimate Cut and National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation on Blu-ray; Kevin’s picks include The Rocky Undisputed Collection, Say Anything on Blu-ray, Disney Treasures: Zorro Seasons 1 and 2, Two Girls and a Guy on Blu-ray, Eleventh Hour, Aliens in the Attic, Love Actually, The Dead, Mickey’s Magical Christmas and I Love You Beth Cooper; Review Recap and a look ahead to next week.

Next Week’s Show:

Kevin and Neil get apocalyptic with 2012 and Pirate Radio

Show Links:

Kevin’s guest appearance on CriterionCast, talking about Terry Gilliam’s Brazil
FSR’s Weekly Report Card for A Christmas Carol, The Fourth Kind and The Box

Give the Fat Guys some love:

Subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe via RSS

Email the Fat Guys
Follow Kevin on Twitter (@kevincarr)
Follow Neil on Twitter (@rejects)

Kick-Ass Character Posters Spell Things Out

Neil Miller — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:48:27 +0000

The folks at IGN have debuted for new character posters from the upcoming Lionsgate release Kick-Ass, from director Matthew Vaughn and the mind of Wanted writer Mark Millar. This comic property, now highly anticipated due to a wicked-cool showing at the San Diego Comic-Con this year, will star Nicolas Cage, Aaron Johnson, Chloe Moretz and Christopher Mintz-Plasse as average folks (mostly kids) who dress up as superheros and take on crime. Well, sort of.

The new round of posters shows off the characters in costume. And when put together — seen above — they spell out the film’s title and the most likely pun that critics will use if the film succeeds with its plans to delight audiences with mayhem: Kick-Ass kicks ass. Get it?

Alas, here are the posters and some character descriptions. Click any of the posters to see the larger versions at IGN.

First up is Davi Lizewski (Johnson), the central character of the film. He’s no superhero, nor is he particularly smart or strong. In fact, he’s not extraordinary at all. He just wants to be a hero. So he dawns a scuba suit, ski mask and wields a pair of clubs as he takes on crime. Sure, he gets beaten quite badly (and stabbed) several times along the way, but that won’t stop this determined youngster from upholding justice.

Next is Hit-Girl (Moretz), an acrobatic junior assassin who will slice and dice anyone who gets in her way. She’s only 11-years old, but that doesn’t stop her from delivering the pain when it comes time.

Big Daddy (Cage) is the father of Hit-Girl, a dubious character who has raised his only daughter to be a ruthless vigilante. His plans are more complex than those of his youthful daughter and her newfound friend Kick-Ass, as he’s looking to get even with a crime boss who killed his wife.

Finally, we have Red Mist (Mintz-Plasse), a new hero who emerges in the aftermath of Kick-Ass’ debut. He’s a little stoner who becomes a participant in Kick-Ass’ mission, ever close but always plotting with his own underlying motivation.

There’s more than just a little bit to be excited about here. I’ve read several reader reviews from various sites, as well as the ones that a few of our readers have sent in, and I couldn’t be more pumped to see this film finally hit the big screen. From what I’ve heard, Matthew Vaughn has captured perfectly the razor’s edge that Mark Millar and John Romita Jr. gave this story when they inked it, and we will all be delighted when it finally drops.

Kick-Ass hits theaters on April 16, 2010.

Film School Rejects

Rock, Paper, Scissors: The Next Big Thing in Sport Movies?

Related Reading:

Review: The Box

Related Reading:

Review: ‘The Fourth Kind’ Should’ve Been Narrated By Robert Stack

Related Reading:

Ladies and Gentlemen, A Word from Werner Herzog

Related Reading:

A Christmas Carol: ‘Twas a Spiritless Affair, Indeed

Related Reading:

Daily Diversion: Titular Lines

Related Reading:

The Slammin’ Salmon Trailer: The Movie is Better, We Promise

Related Reading:

Exclusive Video: Gentlemen Broncos Orders Turkey Testicles

Related Reading:

Dan Aykroyd, Anna Faris, Justin Timberlake and Yogi Bear, Oh My!

Related Reading:

Kevin Carr’s Weekly Report Card for 11.06.09

A CHRISTMAS CAROL

THE FOURTH KIND

THE BOX

Related Reading:

Review: Disney’s A Christmas Carol

Related Reading:

30 Rock Review: Audition Day

Related Reading:

The Reject Report Sings a Christmas Carol, Stares At Goats

Related Reading:

Fat Guys at the Movies Ep. 139 – The Fat Kind

Episode Schedule:

Next Week’s Show:

Show Links:

Give the Fat Guys some love:

Related Reading:

Kick-Ass Character Posters Spell Things Out

Related Reading: