Category: Theatrical Review

After a stunning opening credits sequence in which we’re presented with a simplified by-the-numbers version of the United States involvement in Arab Oil production, our scene shifts to an American community of oil workers in the Saudi city of Riyadh, where men posing as Saudi police charged with the protection of the Americans stage a devastating terrorist attack killing many of the people in the city and taking out any sort of FBI involvement present there. The FBI are charged with the protection and investigation of these sorts of American events abroad, and once word has come down, FBI forensics agent Ronald Flury and his team find their hands tied at even getting into Saudi Arabia to actually investigate what has happened. After a little political manipulation, they are allowed to send in four agents to investigate, but only at the whims of the Arabian Prince in charge. Flury and his team, and a Saudi police officer named Faris Al Ghazi, after some initial head-butting, come together to piece together what happened and who is responsible.

And with that, you have the basic premise of The Kingdom the newest movie from director (and actor- he’s in the film) Peter Berg, who amazed me with his prior efforts, The Rundown and Friday Night Lights and he amazes me again with The Kingdom delivering what I think is right up there with the very best that I’ve seen this year.

What’s amazing to me in ths film is that for once, the terrorists in the movie are actually Muslim terrorists, without any sort of secret-y, shadowy American involvement. It’s not handled in the cynical Hollywood way, which more often than not points the finger and says, “We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us” which is at this point getting to be the most tired cliche in movies now that try to say anything at all about American involvement in the Middle East. The last movie that I saw that handled this this fairly was United 93 which was definitely my favorite film of last year. Berg’s film is obviously a fictional account, but it seems well researched, and it’s more concerned with the obvious feelings of revenge that first set in after devastating events such as these occur. In other words, thank goodness, he doesn’t come in to politicize what has happened and as a result, you’ve got something here that handles this quite fairly showing all sorts of points of view. To somewhat simplify it, this sort of reminds of taking a movie like Syriana and crossing it with films like Peacemaker or Black Rain.

In some reviews that I’ve seen, this movie is sort of being indicted as the type of thing which will further an anti-Muslim resentment in the US, and I don’t think that’s so at all, because really it’s more than fair in showing the Saudi’s Prince of his region earnestness in wanting to solve this crime and even more so in it’s treatment of Faris, who becomes this character that you really give a damn about by the end of the film.

Berg has assembled as unlikely a team of actors working together in a project like this as I’ve ever seen. Jamie Foxx plays Agent Flury and he’s backed up by Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman as his team, and these four really work well together, there’s a “lived-in” quality to both their work and their personal relationships that feels honest. Jeremy Piven and Danny Huston play State department officials who more take on the cynical Hollywood side of these events, but they’re not at all force-fed to us, and their portrayals again feel right. I did not catch the name of the actor who plays Faris, but he does one hell of a job here, and his relationship with Foxx, which first starts as head-butting, and then moves to cooperation again feels just right.

Berg’s films have gotten more technically proficient with each one, and The Kingdom is no exception. He employs a handheld camera style (that of course others complain about yet again) that works here, and works dramatically well especially in later parts of the film where all sorts of chaos erupts. Danny Elfman provides a very cool more techno and drumbeat influenced score that also keeps the pace moving quite effectively.

I cannot recommend The Kingdom enough, from it’s riveting opening credits to the absolutely chilling last lines of the film, it’s one hell of a ride and one great story, superbly shown and acted out. Don’t miss this one…

In Alaska, some places undergo a natural phenomenon where they go a full month with absolutely no sunlight whatsoever, one of those places is the small town of Barrow, and right as this is about to occur, the small town is prepping for it with a full 80% of the town leaving for the period, just not being able to stand it. In the midst of this, the sheriff of the town Eben Oleson and the fire marshal, his wife, Stella, are going through their own personal crisis. But as darkness comes to Barrow, the population takes a slight increase as a group of vampires come to town, ready to feast and take full advantage of the natural phenomenon.

And that’s the basic premise to the new movie 30 Days of Night from director David Slade (who previously gave us the pedophile revenge/creepfest Hard Candy) and producer Sam Raimi, who’s obviously no stranger to horror films at all. This is adapted from the graphic novel by Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith, and as a comic reader, I’m sad to say that I’ve never read the book, so I’m really no judge about how faithful it is, but at the same time, it almost doesn’t matter to me, because what’s on-screen is one tremendous and very tense piece of horror entertainment right from the word “go.”

One thing I really admire is the approach taken with the vampires, they’re not these suave and sophisticated Euro-trash that’s all cliches (like seen in the Underworld films), though they are European, there’s still something quite different from what we’ve seen before, obviously looking like they’ve come from some refinement in their dress, their physical make-up is much more frightening, almost more of something out of Nosferatu and they speak purely in what sounds like a Slavic tongue, adding more to their intrigue.

The other thing that I really like with Slade’s very stylish film is that by it’s very set-up, it takes the vampire film and sort of crosses it with aspects of a zombie movie, with small groups of people barricading themselves and hiding from these monsters, all while trying to stick out the 30 days of terror in front of them. I tend to think that Zombie movies have a real immediacy about them that at least for me makes them really compelling to watch, and 30 Days of Night has that in spades.

There’s a good cast at work here, with Josh Hartnett and Melissa George playing Eben and Stella, and they’re solid as rocks here, being our eyes into this world of terror that’s come into their town. The always good Ben Foster (who’s chameleon abilities transform him into something different in every movie he’s in- compare him here to The Angel who he plays in X-Men 3) is suitably creepy as a drifter who becomes the key to the vampires coming into town. But special note has to go to Danny Huston, son of the great John Huston, who plays the leader of this pack of vampires, who’s just absolutely terrific in his part. Huston’s been showing up in a lot of movies lately and he’s always a great addition to any cast, but here… here he really stands out.

If you’re in the mood for a great horror movie, then really look no further than 30 Days of Night because this one is something that’s really special and just a hell of a lot of fun to watch. Here’s another one that definitely moves into consideration for my own Top 10 of 2007. Obviously, highly recommended… don’t miss it…

It’s been some time since Resident Evil: Apocalypse and now the T-Virus has spread globally, not just laying waste to humanity, but to the environment as well, leaving much of the planet a dusty, desert wasteland. Small pockets of humanity continue to survive, but always on the move. The Umbrella Corporation is attempting a cure with clone after clone being made of Alice, the woman that holds the key to survival with her paranormal abilities. Alice, is on the run on her own, having abandoned her comrades after their escape in Apocalypse because she is the one being tracked, not them. Carlos has hooked up with a caravan of survivors being led by Claire Redfield. And as things stand, paths are about to cross again, in a battle for survival as the Umbrella Corporation tightens their pursuit of the original Alice.

And in a nutshell, that’s the premise to Resident Evil: Extinction the third in the Resident Evil series of films and I’ve got to say, if you’ve seen the first two movies, this is some pretty cool entertainment. Very much well done work from director Russell Mulcahy (best known for his work on the first Highlander film) delivering a science fiction/horror adventure that plays out like a cross between The Road Warrior and Romero’s Dead films.

This is fun to watch right from the start, playing with all sorts of little facets from the first film and working in facets of the second, it’s a natural progression of events, very well-paced and well-acted (and keep in mind when I’m saying this, this isn’t trying to be any sort of Oscar-winner here)

Milla Jovavich is back as Alice, and as always, she’s just terrific, she looks fantastic and she pulls off the action quite well, with some of the moves happening so fast, one wonders if she’s the one at work in them, but it sure looks like her. Other cast members include Oded Fehr, returning as Carlos and Heroes’ Ali Larter as Claire Redfield, and all sorts of other good folks around, none of them household names by any means, but all of them convicted to their parts (unfortunately I cannot remember the name of the actor who plays the lead scientist for the Umbrella Corporation and our villain of the piece, but he is quite good).

If you like these films, and I most certainly do (though I have to admit, it took me a couple of viewings of Apocalypse to appreciate it more than I did on the first viewing), then really, you’re probably already planning to see Resident Evil: Extinction and more than likely, you’re going to have a great time with it, I know I did and I definitely look forward to owning this one down the road. Very much recommended, and especially to fans of the series…

In London, a young Russian girl goes into a pharmacy looking for help. She’s clearly disturbed and pregnant and soon falls unconscious, due to a disturbance in her pregnancy. Once taken to a hospital, she falls under the care of a midwife named Anna, and unfortunately the mother dies, but her daughter lives. Anna discovers a diary from the young woman and she’s wants to find out more about this young girl, to see if she has any other family or else her newborn baby might become lost within London’s system. Anna’s investigation leads her to the Russian mob operating in London, where she intrigues the owner of a Russian restaurant with her predicament and catches the eye of a driver named Nikolai…

And that’s the starting premise of David Cronenberg’s newest movie, which is unfortunately a godawful title for this film, sounding more like some sort of subtle flavored tea or a new scented douche as opposed to even remotely conveying much of anything that this film is about. Now that’s not saying it’s a bad movie, it’s not that by any means and in fact out of all of Cronenberg’s films, this one might be his most straightforward and mainstream piece yet.

This all plays out well, but a little too much by the book, and Cronenberg’s style has always been one of detachment (i.e. it’s a little hard to feel too much sympathy for a lot of his characters because they tend to have an almost clinical removal from conventional emotions) and while this does play out well, considering how mainstream this is, maybe Cronenberg should’ve tried for a little more emotional connection than usual.

An attachment does come, but it’s almost too little and too late (happening after the most violent scene in the movie, a vicious fight in a bath house that is probably the most violent thing I’ve seen in a movie all year). It still doesn’t mean that this isn’t a good movie, it is… but it could’ve been quite a bit better had Cronenberg changed up his style a bit. Another change that would’ve worked would’ve been to have upped the pace as well, this is a cautious and deliberate piece which is par for the course for Cronenberg, and it could’ve used a little more of him just taking a chance here or there.

He’s got a tremendous cast at work here, but unfortunately for them, these are all parts that aren’t any real challenge to them, they’ve all played these “types” before. The cast includes Viggo Mortenson as Nikolai (who looks to me more and more like a young Kirk Douglas all the time), Naomi Watts as Anna, Vincent Cassel as Kirill the slightly unbalanced son of the mob boss played by Armin Muehler-Stahl. Again, all are very solid in their roles, without any huge surprises (although to give credit, there is something that happens with one of them that I did not see coming, but it’s not as jolting as it could be).

It’s well made, well crafted, extremely well-acted and yet it misses some sort of punch or “oomph” or something that could’ve raised it up even more. Cronenberg does a fine job with Eastern Promises but it’s almost too safe for him, and it’s a shame, because he can deliver films with a punch, it’s just that most of those have always been in the horror genre. I still recommend this, but for a more patient viewer, if you’re demanding something new every other minute, then this probably won’t be your thing.

Based on Korean Legend, every five hundred years, fierce dragons and evil mystic warriors appear to keep a legend from being fulfilled, with it’s last attempt at fulfillment being thwarted in the year 1507, consigning the planet to again experience these creatures again, now in the year 2007. Two of these Korean guardians, now reincarnated as a young TV reporter and an antiques dealer, now do what they can to fulfill the legend, even as these creates begin to lay waste to the city of Los Angeles.

And believe me, D-War: Dragon Wars is even more convoluted than what I described above, it’s based on Korean legend anyway, and translated into modern times and in an American environment, it comes off as pretty silly, but with that said I still thought this was a fun movie, if even part of the fun was sitting back and enjoying the film in a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fashion.

The real saving grace of the film is this absolutely incredible battle that goes on between American military forces and these mystic warriors and dragons across the streets of Los Angeles, it’s just fun as hell to watch and probably some of the very best special effects I’ve seen in a movie all year… and the timing of this is right in the film, because up to this point, this was all almost too silly to buy into before this goes down.

But as one of my friends said after we saw the film, “If I was 10 or 11 years old, this would be the coolest movie I’d ever seen” and he’s absolutely right, for a younger audience, this whole thing is probably pretty cool stuff and they wouldn’t be looking at the stuff I found laughable like Jason Behr playing this “seasoned” TV reporter who’s also an angst-ridden twenty-something cliche. Most of what I saw as the silly stuff of the film is in the American characters, and mostly then around Behr and the actress who’s playing Sarah, another reincarnated character important to the legend. Other American actors filling out the cast include Robert Forster, Chris Mulkey, Elizabeth Pena and Billy Gardell, and to give the Korean filmmakers credit, they don’t do anything to these characters that would make them seem stupid. Billy Gardell has the most comedic moments in the film and they’re totally fitting in with the events, and not done as any sort of audience pandering (like say Anthony Anderson in Transformers).

It’s fun stuff overall, but don’t go into this expecting it to be this serious genre film by any means. It’s got some brilliant effects, but at it’s core, it’s B-movie entertainment and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that at all. Go into it thinking that, and I’d expect most adult audiences will have a pretty good time, if you’ve got a small child though, they just might think it’s the coolest thing they’ve ever seen…

It’s the old west, after the Civil War. Dan Evans is a struggling rancher who’s lost his leg in the war (and now wears a prosthetic) and is losing the respect of his sons and his wife as he’s watching his ranch being taken from him over a debt he owes. Ben Wade is the leader of a vicious gang of killers who as we see them are attempting the robbery of a Pinkerton delivered money run. Their paths intersect as Dan is taking his sons into the town of Bisbee to try to settle what has happened to him. Dan and his sons see the outcome of the Pinkerton robbery and luckily get away from Wade and his gang only at Wade’s mercy. As the Wade mob moves into Bisbee, they send the sheriff there on a wild goose chase as to where their really at and then split their money and part ways. Again, Dan Evans comes back into contact with Wade, helping to ambush him, and have him captured. One of Wade’s mob sees this happen and rides off to get the rest of the gang to free Wade, and Dan signs on to with the remaining Pinkertons to deliver Ben Wade to justice by getting him on the 3:10 to Yuma train in the town of Contention.

And that’s the basic start of the new film from director James Mangold, 3:10 To Yuma, a remake of a western that I’ve never seen before, so this is new to me anyway. Though the way I understand it, this new movie, in the eyes of most critics is far better than the original and about a half hour longer too. For the most part, I think this is a pretty terrific film, but in it’s final moments it falls apart for me anyway, but I’ll get to that shortly in a spoiler section.

Mangold, who also gave us the excellent Cop Land is sort of on familiar ground again with this story. And he does a great job of setting things up, in particular with Dan Evans and his family. I think starting with Ben Wade, he does a nice job of setting him up as this undoubtedly dastardly rogue who uses his own charisma to get into the heads of his captors, but at it’s end, Wade takes a turn that at least to me doesn’t seem right, and as such didn’t sit well with me. But I’ll tell you, from what I could tell, with four of us there to see this together, I was the only one that it didn’t sit well with, and you may very well feel differently about it.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Where it doesn’t work for me is an alliance made between Dan and Ben at the very end to get Ben on the train. Although Ben’s gang gets into Contention, going through their own travails on the road to get there, and they’re ready to free him, Ben has taken a turn to want to give in to Dan’s desires to make himself a hero for his family, and let him turn him in, even saying that he will escape from Yuma, as he’s done so in the past. Dan gets shot down by Ben’s gang, right as he gets him on the train and then immediately Ben turns on his own gang, who has followed him in to rescue him and shoots them all down in cold blood, all in front of the eyes of Dan’s oldest son. There’s a point where Dan’s son has a gun right on Ben at the end, and has the opportunity to take him right out (which is what I think should’ve happened), but instead, Ben still turns himself in, gets on the train, and as the train departs, Ben gives out a whistle for his horse to come following, as though this sadistic killer will escape within minutes of the train leaving. I honestly thought that this man should’ve had to pay for his crimes by the end, because we are lead to believe that he’s committed some pretty horrible ones, but instead, through this one rancher, in all of these crimes, he’s now found “honor” of a sorts, and that makes it all right- again, your own mileage may vary with this- it didn’t work for me, but I’m a definite minority when it comes to that as well.

END SPOILERS

Mangold’s got a hell of a cast here, Christian Bale is Dan Evans and Russell Crowe is Ben Wade, and both do a great job with the material that in front of them (I just don’t agree with the end of that material). they’re backed up with some great supporting talent including Peter Fonda, Alan Tudyk, Gretchen Mol, and Ben Foster (Foster’s really good here as Charlie Prince, Wade’s second in his gang– Foster’s one of these guys who’s fun to watch in everything he does, and he’s a far cry away here from the character that he played in The X-Men, The Angel).

Mangold’s movie does look great though (and we saw it in digital projection), it sounds great and as I said, building towards it’s end, it’s a terrific film. I just don’t agree with it’s ending, but then that’s me too, and I’m in a definite minority with that opinion. You very well may enjoy it, and I certainly well give this a second look down the road on DVD…

It’s the middle of the evening and a lone stranger is sitting on a street bench, munching on a carrot. A pregnant woman runs past him, clearly upset and in pain. A car comes into the scene and a deadly killer gets out clearly in pursuit of the woman. Our stranger, sees that it’s now his time to get involved, and what follows is a deadly chase involving a baby, a senator, a gun trader, a lactating hooker, and a whole bunch of hitmen.

And that’s the gist of Shoot ‘Em Up a new action movie from director Michael Davis, that is clearly a parody of action movies in general and a salute Looney Tunes, John Woo and Takashi Miike in particular. This is one of those movies that clearly divides it’s audiences, with most either wildly loving it or hating it. I enjoyed it, but think it has a few problems, but still thought it was a nice little ride.

One of the biggest complaints that most have about it is the common internet caveat “Where’s the plot?” Well the plot is there, it’s just buried under tons of over-the-top action and parody. I mean make no mistake, there is a story here, but this movie is clearly parody and as part of it’s parody, it buries it even moreso than traditional action films (that get the same complaint) do. There’s motivations for all of the characters, but again, like the plot, they’re at the service of the parody that’s centerpiece.

The action is fast and furious, and sometimes it’s cut a little too much like that. Michael Davis is very fond of the quick cut here, but then again as far as I’m concerned, that’s all part of the parody as well. But here, I think it works to the disadvantage of the film, mostly in the idea that with a few exceptions, you don’t necessarily get that clear a picture of all the action that is going on. Again, I think it’s part of the parody, but here it doesn’t quite translate as well as it should.

Davis has a killer cast at work. Clive Owen is Mr. Smith, our carrot munching stranger at the start, who’s one part stoic action hero and one part Bugs Bunny. Monica Belluci is the lactating hooker who’s here entirely as eye candy and I think she knows that full well (and if you’re gonna have eye candy in a movie, it really doesn’t get much better than Belluci). Paul Giamatti is Hertz, the leader of the hitmen, and he’s all wacky, being a sort of composite Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam, he, more than anyone else is clearly having the most fun in the film. I like Clive Owen, I really do, but his casting is something that I see as another problem in the film. For the type of parody this film is displaying, it almost seems that someone more like a Bruce Willis might’ve better served the part, or at least the Bugs Bunny side of it more.

In a lot of reviews, you’ll see mentions of Looney Tunes and John Woo, and as I mentioned above, I see the work of Japanese cult director Takashi Miike in here too, in particular, this film feels more like an American version of his action masterpiece Dead or Alive, with one of the final action bits here clearly being something that you could easily see Miike do. This is one of those things that wne this eventually comes out on DVD, I hope there’s a commentary from Michael Davis on the disk, because I’d love to hear if Miike was in fact an influence here.

And on DVD is probably where most people are going to see this film- We saw a 10:00 showing of this film last night and I have to say I was expecting a little bit of a turnout, nothing overwhelming, but at least a lot more than the seven or eight people that we had in total in our theatre. I liked it, but I do think it has a few problems, but if our audience was any indication, most probably won’t care if they see it or not.

Nicholas Hume is a man who has everything, a loving wife, two wonderful sons, a secure job- everything is going his way, or as he puts it, there is order in the universe. His eldest son is a hockey prodigy, and one night, coming home from a big game, Nick and his son find themselves the victims of gang violence, resulting in the death of that son, and now tearing apart Nick’s life sending him into a downhill plunge of violence of which there seems no escape.

And that’s the basic premise of the new movie from the original director of Saw, James Wan, Death Sentence based on a book by author Brian Garfield which in itself was a written response to sequels of a movie based on another of his books, Death Wish. As far as I’m concerned though, this feels like it’s a new version of Death Wish for our times now, and ultimately, with just a minor caveat, I think Wan has delivered a pretty satisfying film, one that has some definite weight to it and not necessarily just an excuse for wanton violence on-screen.

Wan’s clearly grown since Saw it’s real evident here, as at least to me anyway, his storytelling is way more matter of fact and far less relying on some of the tricks that he used in Saw. One of the set pieces of the film, a brilliant foot chase that leads to a final conclusion in a parking garage, is just really well done, often times giving the illusion of a single extended shot, it’s just real exciting to watch. But he just doesn’t rest there, as he’s really on his game with his actors as well.

My one minor complaint with the film concerns a transformation of one of the characters that happens a little too fast, though I think some of that can be explained a bit, I just would’ve liked it more had it taken a little more time in the film.

Kevin Bacon plays Nick Hume, and Bacon is really good here. He’s obviously invested himself emotionally in the role, and he’s asked to do some tough physical stuff as well. We’re pretty much with Bacon through the whole film, and we want him to come out on top- which is certainly a good sign of his abilities. Kelly Preston plays his wife and while I can’t remember the names of the actors who plays his sons, they do a nice job, and they are convincing as a family unit. Aisha Tyler plays a police detective who’s involved with the case and she’s solid here. John Goodman creepily plays a gun runner who’s the backbone of this gang and it’s really fun to watch him work here. And again, I can’t remember the names of the actors who play the gang members (although Saw star and co-writer Leigh Whannell is one of them), but they do a great job, not just playing some two-dimensional cut-outs, but actually having their own weight as well, when they see that their own “family unit” is threatened.

There’s a lot of other movies that Death Sentence owes to (particularly Taxi Driver) and really I don’t have a problem with that, and I tend to think that this probably couldn’t have been made any other way, without thinking of those movies, revenge films tend to do that. But still, James Wan has put together a pretty effective piece of filmmaking here that I know I certainly enjoyed quite a bit. Very much recommended.

In the town of Haddonfield, Illinois, something evil and destructive is brewing. Young Michael Myers is the disturbed product of a highly dysfunctional family: an abusive drunk who’s his “father figure,” a stripper mother who harbors no respect from anyone, and a promiscuous sister, who shows him little regard, all he truly has is a baby sister who he does love and a festering and destructive anger, that one Halloween night, comes to a boil in dramatic fashion… and from there a rain of horror falls.

And that’s the opening part of Rob Zombie’s re-imagining of the classic John Carpenter film Halloween, and I use the term “re-imagining” deliberately as a lot of others are referring to it as a remake, and yet there’s some huge differences here. Make no mistake, this certainly does owe to John Carpenter’s legendary original in huge ways, but Zombie has made it his own. Carpenter’s film is very much a product of it’s time, and what Zombie has chosen to do is the same thing, come back with this and make it a product of his time and his worldview, creating a very nihilistic world, with little to no redeeming value in it whatsoever. He’s also chosen to give Michael Myers a very human persona, in his own way- whereas the original keeps Myers as almost this mythic force, Zombie chooses to deconstruct the myth. In John Carpenter’s film, you were always seeing things out of the corner of your eye, in Zombie’s, he shows it to you full one and often lingers over it.

The first hour of the movie is pretty damn good and pretty damn intense. This focuses on Michael’s childhood, his incarceration and his dealings with Dr. Sam Loomis and it’s pretty magnetic stuff. The second hour of the movie comes back to the familiar ground of the first film, and though it’s all covered in about an hour, it actually feels slower in comparison to Carpenter’s original. In particular, the last 15 minutes of the film has a little too much to it, mostly trying for more terror thrills when it could’ve been tied up a little more tidily.

The other thing that bothers me a bit here is that really there’s not a whole lot of anyone to really side with in the film. I tended to think that most of the people were pretty loathsome, and while that pretty much makes sense for the first hour of the film, to me anyway, it decreases the horror of the second hour. The only time when it does veer away from that is with the Laurie Strode character and her parents. But the other thing that happens here is that this is pretty loyal to the events of Carpenter’s original, and I can certainly commend Zombie for wanting to keep it that close, but I think if he would’ve done something a little more different than that, he could’ve come away with something more effective.

The other thing that I commend him with is the music of the film. Tyler Bates provides the film’s music and there’s a good creepy score here that certainly does reference John Carpenter’s original music. It’s quite well done.

Zombie’s got his most eclectic cast yet in this movie- Oh, his regulars are certainly back, Sherrie Moon Zombie, Bill Mosely, Sid Haig and William Forsythe are all here, and you’ve also got other parts filled out by Brad Dourif, Richard Lynch, Clint Howard, Udo Kier, Danny Trejo, Tom Towles, Leslie Easterbrook, Sybil Danning and Mickey Dolenz (of The Monkees). Daeg Faerch is the name of the young actor who plays the young Michael Myers, and this kid is absolutely terrific. Scout Taylor-Compton steps into Jamie Lee Curtis’ shoes to play Laurie Strode, and she sort of reminds me of a cleaner Lindsay Lohan. Tyler Mane plays the adult Michael Myers, and he’s physically quite the change from the original. Big, hulkish and in your face, his presence is certainly one facet of Zombie’s re-imagination. And the always great Malcolm McDowell steps into Donald Pleasance’s shoes to play Dr. Sam Loomis, and he does a great job, certainly playing Loomis in a more down to earth manner, whereas Pleasance’s character was literally a harbinger of doom for what was coming to Haddonfield, convincing you that what was coming was pure and utter evil, McDowell’s Loomis does the same thing of a sorts, but he’s definitely playing this as more a real psychiatrist than what Pleasance did.

Now I am a Rob Zombie fan, I love his first two movies and I still think that this year he’s given me anyway the screen’s best moment with his Werewolf Women of the S.S. trailer in Grindhouse. I’d rank Halloween as third in my order of preference in his films, even though I do think he’s displayed some tremendous growth as a filmmaker here. But, he is re-imagining a genuine horror classic here- and make no mistake about it, John Carpenter’s original film is indeed just that, a true classic. For Zombie to really do it justice he can’t really make any misfires, and yet here he does make a couple. In the end, I still think it’s a worthy view, especially if you’ve seen the original, but it doesn’t carry the same impact as the original- Carpenter literally made your pulse race at the end of the film, but Zombie is just making you wait for the end of his film, and for re-imagining a genuine horror classic, if there’s anything that should be true to the original, it should be the true sense of terror that came out of it. It’s still a worthy effort, it just falls a little short.

FBI Agent John Crawford lost his partner in a revenge killing over an FBI investigation of Yakuza activity in San Francisco. The killing was carried out by am outside source, known only as Rogue. Three years later, Rogue has resurfaced as a war between the Yakuza and the Triads escalates in San Francisco and now John Crawford is out for total revenge.

And that’s the basic premise of the new action movie War featuring two of today’s biggest action stars, Jason Statham and Jet Li. To me this movie sort of plays out like Michael Mann’s Heat but for the short-attention spanned. That’s not a knock on the film in anyway, but there are similarities to Mann’s film, although this one doesn’t quite approach it in the same epic terms. This one plays as more a “B” film, but with some nice set pieces and a flip near the end of the film, that I can say at least I didn’t see coming.

I enjoyed this, but I’ll also tell you it’s hardly the best thing that I’ve seen this year. There’s a lot more that one could ask of this, though it does, at least to me, seem to cross all it’s “t’s” and dot all it’s “i’s.” Director Philip Atwill keeps the movie very fast-paced, but still it could’ve used a little more fleshing out, and probably a little more style and “oomph” to it’s action pieces (though some are very nice, including a final showdown in the San Francisco Yakuza headquarters).

Now I like both Statham and Li, and I can see the attraction to wanting to put them in a movie together (they’ve been in one together before, the science fiction film from Morgan and Wong called The One but that was before Statham’s star was more on the rise). But Statham isn’t hiding his British accent, though he’s distinctly playing an American FBI agent, and Li of course is Chinese, and here he’s playing Japanese- it’s a little goofy, but still having them playing accurate representations of their parts isn’t exactly what this one is about. They’re there mostly for some big-ass action more than anything else. They’re solid here though, with Statham getting a little more of the boost playing the “cop on the edge.”

Like I said above, I’ve certainly seen far better this year, but I still thought this was an entertaining diversion and a nice night out with the friends who I see movies with. Lionsgate didn’t exactly release this one for critical review, and after seeing the film, I sort of wonder why? I don’t think they had anything to be embarrassed by with this, and more than likely they probably would’ve expected reviewers to basically come in and say it’s purely for fans of the stars alone, but had little else to offer- but I guess you never really know. More than likely most will catch this on DVD than anything else, but still I certainly had a good time with it, and again where I saw it, it was shown in a digital projection room and that in itself offers up it’s own sort of fun…