Back Seat Producers

One of Danny Ocean’s crew, Rueben (played by Elliot Gould) has decided that pulling off capers just isn’t for him any more and he wants to take his money and open up the most extravagant casino on the Las Vegas strip. Rueben, against everyone else’s advice, partners up with a slick and sleazy businessman name Willie Bank, who quickly screws Reuben out of the entire deal, causing him a heart attack. Danny Ocean, Rusty, Linus and the rest of the crew are looking for revenge and they devise a very complex scheme in which to take Willie Bank down…

… and that’s the premise for Ocean’s Thirteen the latest film from todays Scorsese and DeNiro, Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney. And personally, I think it’s fun as hell…

Soderbergh is, at least in my eyes, one of the most talented filmmakers out there today, always inventive and always stylish, he makes stuff that for me anyway, is always highly watchable, and with the case of the Ocean’s movies, re-watchable. His scenes and set-ups are just extremely well-devised and as is the case with these movies, that style, their wonderful music, and the high-powered cast brings in a sense of “Hollywood Cool” that I think we really haven’t had since the days of the original Ocean’s Eleven with Frank Sinatra and the rest of the Rat Pack.

I was watching this weekend’s Lyons and Bailes: Reel Talk on NBC (which if you’ve never seen the show, is well worth catching as an alternative to Ebert & Roeper- This shows late night in the wee small ones on Saturday and Sunday mornings and stars film critics Jeffrey Lyons and Allison Bailes, Bailes getting my pick as the sexy movie reviewer out there- not just attractive, but she knows her stuff… but I digress), and they didn’t recommend the film because they just saw it as this caper thing with no real character development. Well, I don’t think you go to see a movie like this looking for character development, or at least I don’t… I definitely go for the “cool” factor of the film and watching Steven Soderbergh weave his film-making magic and I think if you know that before you go in, then you’ll probably be entertained along the way.

Everybody’s back for this film, George Clooney of course, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Elliot Gould, Carl Reiner, Casey Affleck, Scott Caan, Don Cheadle, Eddie Jemison, Shaobo Qin and Bernie Mac all reprise their parts as the eleven. Even Andy Garcia returns in a nice little turn of events, as does Vincent Cassel from Ocean’s Twelve, along with Eddie Izzard too. The only people not in this film are Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones, and I was halfway expecting them to turn up by the film’s end, but it didn’t happen. Joining this cast are the scenery-chewing Al Pacino and Ellen Barkin who as far as I’m concerned is still hot as hell. Pacino’s having a lot of fun here, that’s pretty evident on-screen- oh, this film hardly pushes him in anyway, but he’s still fun to watch.

Yep, it’s a convoluted plan, I’ll give you that, but it just didn’t matter to me, I still thought it was easy to follow and a lot of fun to watch, and there’s some inspired moments along the way, including a bit where Danny is caught getting involved while watching an episode of Oprah that has a tremendous pay-off by the film’s end. This is subtly fun stuff, and so far for me, the first of this summer’s Hollywood sequels to really give me a totally satisfying film experience. If you like the first two movies, I’d certainly recommend this one as well, and if you’re a fan of Steven Soderbergh, don’t even give it a second thought…

When the original Hostel ended, the young man, Paxton, had just escaped the European torture facility by having to commit a few brutal murders of his own. Hostel Part 2 picks right up with Paxton at it’s start, but quickly moves on to a new set of victims for it’s second installment. Three young female students are making their way through Europe and while attending an art class in Italy, they meet a young model who becomes attached to them and takes them to the Slovak area, setting them up to be the next targets for the dreaded Elite Hunting group (if you’ve seen the first movie, then you know that Elite Hunting is the name of the group that finds these young victims and then puts them up for bid for wealthy business people to come and do with as they please, with the end result having to be killing their victim). We also follow two American businessmen, one who’s gung-ho to do this thing while the other is a little skittish about it. And from there, hijinks ensue…

For the most part, Hostel Part 2 follows the same formula as the original, with setting up the girls in it’s first half, as well as the businessmen, and then it ups it’s pace in it’s second half taking place within the torture facility. Writer/Director Eli Roth follows this,, but also manages to throw in a twist or two along the way, and it’s usually a twisted twist as well…

Critics of these films call them torture-porn, but I don’t quite see it the same way. What Roth has done with his first three movies (the two Hostels and Cabin Fever) has basically gone back to a 70s style type of terror film from which really there is no hope… you’re taking the ride with the victims, and in some cases emphasizing with them, but ultimately the shock comes in either their own demises or what they have to do to get through this themselves. In the case of Paxton with the first film, it was transforming him into something that he wasn’t. In the case with this one, it’s the same with a young woman named Beth, very well played by a young actress named Lauren German- but Roth gives us the twist though too with both of his business men, Stuart and Todd, played respectively by Roger Bart and Richard Burgi.

Personally, I do think that Hostel Part 2 is a pretty effective piece of terror until it’s very final scene and then Eli Roth turns it all into a cartoon, basically I think trying to ease an audience into not taking this all too seriously. I could’ve done without his choice in the end to do this, and would’ve preferred that he ended it without the laugh and just kept it as dark and disturbing as he could’ve.

All of the actors give some decent performances here, along with the above-mentioned, Bijou Phillips plays Beth’s friend Whitney, who’s way more of a sexual free-spirit, and independent actress Heather Matarazzo (who I hadn’t seen in anything in awhile), plays Lorna, their somewhat nerdish friend, who at least for me was the most sympathetic character in the film and whose torture moment is probably one of the most painful and disturbing to watch, primarily due to just how well Matarazzo plays the part.

Even with the ending that I disagree with, I’d still recommend this film, especially if you enjoyed Eli Roth’s other films. His films certainly are not for everyone, I’d be the first to grant you that, but if you like to see a horror/terror film that pushes the boundaries about as far as they can go, then Hostel Part 2 just might be up your alley.

Earl Brooks is for all accounts and purposes, the embodiment of the American success story, he’s got a loving wife, a daughter who he’s proud of in college, and he’s the owner of a successful business, and at the start of our story, Earl Brooks is being named Business Man of the Year. Earl Brooks has his demon though and it’s an addiction, an addiction to killing people and Earl has kept that addiction under control for two years. But in the wake of his successful night, his demon comes back out, tempting him as a way at saying “you deserve this- have some fun tonight” in a manifestation that only Earl can see named Marshall. And Earl finds his next victims, and begins to plan to have his fun… and from there, things begin to build and in some interesting ways…

Wow… I gotta say, I never saw this one coming. The promotion for it had been sparse, almost coming out of nowhere over the last two weeks, and for a movie that stars Kevin Costner, well that’s saying something. This almost seems more like an independent film rather than a big-ass studio production, and that’s one of the things that’s very cool about this great little movie called Mr. Brooks.

Costner’s the star, no doubt about it, and this is from his production company, TIG Productions, and it’s without a doubt one of the more interesting and engrossing serial killer movies that I’ve seen in awhile. This is directed by a man named Bruce Evans, who I’m not really that familiar with, and it really looks great and tells it’s story without getting overly flashy. If there’s any one movie that I can say that this comes closest to putting me in the mind of, it’s a classic serial killer movie that doesn’t get seen that often any more called The Stepfather that stars Lost’s Terry O’Quinn, and me saying that is a high compliment.

Some have criticized this movie for having too much in it, developing a couple of other subplots that they said was almost like having three movies in one. Well, I didn’t see it that way- Earl Brooks is shown as a complex man, and his life is equally complex. These other things happen, but it all gets tied together in a satisfying way for me anyway.

Costner is absolutely terrific in this movie. He exercises a few muscles here that he hasn’t used in awhile and he’s clearly enjoying himself, especially when he’s having his conversations with Marshall, who’s played with some great gusto from William Hurt. Costner and Hurt have some terrific chemistry here, and it’s always fun when they’re on-screen together. Demi Moore is in the film, playing Detective Atwood, and she looks great and plays the part with some real lived-in smarts. Comedian Dane Cook is also in the film, playing a young man who’s discovered what Brooks does and wants to experience the rush first hand by blackmailing Brooks. He does a fine job here being an annoying character but not to the point that the audience is annoyed with him. All in all, Costner and company have assembled a fine cast for the film.

In this summer of sequels, movies like Bug and Mr. Brooks are a breath of fresh air. I know over the next two weeks, I’m going to be seeing four more movies, all sequels (Hostel Part 2, Ocean’s 13, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Daywatch) and I can only hope that some of them approach being just as good as what Mr. Brooks is. Good stuff here and very much recommended…

Agnes White is a woman who lives a solitary existence, having her home in a cheap motel, she works as a waitress in a lesbian bar. She’s got her troubles and she’s being plagued by a series of phone calls with no one else on the other end, but she believes it’s her ex-husband Goss, who’s due to be released from prison. One night, Aggie’s friend R.C. comes to her home for a little bit of partying and brings along this strange, but nice, young man that she’s met named Peter Evans, specifically to meet Aggie. Peter’s an odd guy, not looking for anything sexual from Aggie, but seeing something kindred in her to be his friend. Their friendship does become sexual though, and then that’s when the real weirdness begins. Peter confides in Aggie that he’s AWOL from an army experiment that he’s been participating in. He starts to see minute bugs everywhere that he says is some sort of aphid that’s infesting him, and Aggie almost immediately believes him, getting drawn into Peter’s psychosis… and this movie, that’s pretty much been on edge from the start just gets thrust into crazy overdrive after that…

Bug is the latest film from one of the great directors out there, William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection). It’s an adaptation from a stage play by author Tracy Letts and it’s truly one of the most original films that I’ll probably see all year and for me anyway, one hell of an entertaining experience, but a strange one at that. The thing this movie suffers from though is that it’s from Lionsgate, and I like Lionsgate, but they’ve marketed this film as a horror film for the late teens and twentysomethings out there. Now I knew in advance what I was getting into with this, but I could see someone wanting to see this thinking that they’re getting some sort of Saw-like horror film coming away in the end just thinking they’ve been robbed, and sure enough, there were a few people in our audience that felt that way (but there are horrific things in the film). We probably had 10-15 people in the theatre seeing this when we did, and I sort’ve figured it’d be that way, because of the little Pirate film that was also opening this weekend (I actually thought that we’d be the only people in to see this- but I was surprised when more showed up).

The thing is, Friedkin got my attention all the way through this film, and I truly had no idea what was going to happen from one scene to the next, as this movie went from just being a little creepy to being balls-out over-the-top crazy by it’s very end. What this ends up being is what you might describe as a love story between two very disturbed people, or it might be described as a psycho-drama character study, or even down to being this really extreme black comedy… I don’t know, it almost defies being pigeonholed in one category. About 95% of the film takes place in Aggie’s motel home, and considering that it’s limited to such a confined space, Friedkin keeps it interesting and watchable at all times.

He’s certainly well aided by a terrific cast. Ashley Judd is Aggie, and man, she’s really sunk her teeth into this one, giving what I think is a pretty brave performance that at times can go right into pure parody, but she’s committed all the way through. Michael Shannon, an actor that I’m not at all familiar with, makes one hell of an impression as Peter Evans, in which you’re sort’ve rooting for him to be all right by the films end, but once he’s reached a point where that just can’t happen, then it’s just time to sit back and watch him and try and figure out what he’ll do next. Harry Connick Jr. plays Goss, and he’s just rock-solid, sort’ve reminding me a bit as a white-trash-like Jeff Goldblum here, who’s beefed himself up a bit for the part, making himself pretty imposing to anyone else in the film.

But will you like this? That is the question, isn’t it… well, like I said above, I was thoroughly entertained by this going from being in suspense to what will happen from one moment to the next, to laughing at some of the craziness that the character’s utter on screen (Ashley Judd has a line that will probably be a quotable from this one in the future), to just being horrified at what these characters will do to protect themselves from their perceived threats. I know my tastes in film these days tend to run to being way more entertained by the way off-beat stuff than from the conventional Hollywood fare (in most cases- I still have a good time with Hollywood films too) and for me anyway, so far, Bug has been the most entertaining film that I’ve seen for the summer, but just keep in mind, this ain’t a conventional horror film by any means, and it’s not a “safe” film either, you just don’t know what will happen from one moment to the next… if you like some adventurous stuff, I’d certainly recommend Bug in a heartbeat, at least just to experience it… but after that, well you pays your money, you takes your chances…

In the land of Far, Far Away, Charming’s revenge over defeat from Shrek is brewing and he plans to take over the land with the help of the greatest villains of fairy tales. For Shrek though, life is getting more difficult, he and Princess Fiona have more responsibilites to the kingdom, and after Fiona’s father meets his end, Shrek is left with the decision to either become the new king of the land or go on a quest to seek out another heir, a young boy named Arthur Pendragon… and to complicate matters further, Fiona is pregnant. Shrek makes his choice, yearning for the simpler life that he had, he, Donkey and Puss-In-Boots begin their quest to find the boy… but will they make it before Charming overruns the kingdom?

Well, more than likely, you automatically know the answer to that one…

Shrek The Third is the latest in the series from DreamWorks and PDI, and while everything in this film is technically up to a whole new level- it feels to me like they’ve gone back to this mine maybe one time too many. Now the thing is, I really enjoyed watching this, but it’s not so much for the movie itself, that reason I’ll get to before too much longer. I think that there might be only so far that this concept can go, that is at least with holding everyone’s attention- I think small children will totally love this, but the older you get, the less charm that it might have, simply because the jokes for the most part are all of the same note.

Now it does have it’s moments (for me the best being the moment that the Gingerbread Man’s life flashes before his eyes before he’s about to meet his fate- that’s truly the funniest thing in the film), but most of the film seems like they’re trying to go a little too dark in it’s attempt to stay fresh with an older audience and it’s something that just doesn’t work that well on the whole.

There’s no fault with any of the voice work- and everyone’s back in tow- Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas and Cameron Diaz (as well as an assortment of other famous names) all do fine work with what they have- it’s just that what they have maybe should’ve never been committed, at least with the attempt of trying to appeal to all.

But yet I still enjoyed this and you ask why? Well, here in St. Louis, one of the theatre chains has started to go digital and Shrek was the movie shown in digital projection here and it was the first time that I got to experience that. If you see movies as often as I do, then you know that most theatres really feature underlit projection, and more than often you really don’t get to see the movie how it should be intended until you get to see it at home. For the first time, I saw a movie that looks terrific in a theatre and probably as good as if not better than it will in home. This was like watching HDTV on a really huge level and the level of detail, the color, just the sheer solidity of the blacks was truly amazing. So this is a mixed bag, as a story it’s underwhelming unless you’re a really young child, but on a technical level it was a total blast because the animation seen in superior projection was just about as good as it gets.

For your kids, if you have kids, it’s probably totally worth seeing, but for all others, I’d only suggest it if it’s your first experience with digital projection…

In the movie, 28 Days Later, Britain saw the release of the Rage virus, turning humans into mindless maniacal killers from the results of experiments on animals. 28 days later from the initial release of one of the animals, and almost the entire population of the country was infected with the exception being small pockets of humanity here and there who’d managed to avoid them. 28 Weeks Later extrapolates on this further, going precisely that amount of time further from the initial infestation and to a point where a part of London has been opened up again for human habitation, thanks to a United States-led NATO force. We see a lot of this play out through the eyes of the Harris family: Donald Harris had abandoned his wife and a few other survivors to a sudden contact with the infected and he’s ready to welcome his children, who’d been refugees in Spain, back into his life. Telling his children what happened to their mother, they get curious on their own and manage to escape from the protected perimeter and find their way back to their home… only to begin a process that releases the Rage virus yet again…

And that’s the basic gist of 28 Weeks Later a sequel to the above-mentioned 28 Days Later which was from director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Shallow Grave) and was a very stylish new take on a zombie-type of film. 28 Weeks Later from director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo and much of the same crew of 28DL (including Boyle shooting second unit) continues what Boyle started for the most part in fine form. It’s an overall fun ride and one in which you’re never quite sure how it will all turn out in the end.

There are just a couple of nagging issues though that I have with precisely how the Rage virus gets set upon the land again, and they didn’t need to be there, there were other ways that they could’ve gotten to the same place, but for it’s own convenience it took a route that moved it’s story along faster as opposed to doing it in a more logical manner.

Plus there’s an issue involving Donald Harris (very well played by Robert Carlyle) about keeping him around as a “villain” of sorts through the piece so that his kids can have an arc that ties everything together of sorts in the end… this is more of a Hollywood thing than anything else, and for this movie especially with the threat that it deals with, entirely unnecessary– but to say any more would involve some major spoilers and I want to avoid that.

But still, with these problems that I have with it, I still thought that it ws an overall good time and still very much keeping with the precedent that Danny Boyle started with the first film. It’s incredibly well-made, with a huge scope and some very subtle and not-so-subtle effects work. And the music is terrific, especially the repeated rock-guitar riff that gets used in some very intense moments. And both the opening and closing of the film are absolute killers, real nice stuff.

Carlyle is the biggest “name” in the picture, and as I said above, he does real well with his part, as does everyone else in the movie, all solid actors from Jeremy Renner to Harold Perrineau to Catherine McCormack to Idris Elba… delivering the goods solidly. Note also goes to Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton who play the Harris kids, Tammy and Andy.

I’d heard through the grapevine that this was in it’s own way supposed to feature it’s own brand of commentary on the U.S. and the war in Iraq, but honestly, I just didn’t see that.. to me, any of the steps that were taken by the military in the film to shut down this virus seemed like the logical steps to take, and certainly the steps that I’d want them to take if the situation was “for real.” I think some of this talk about that might be folks looking into this a little too much for their own agendas, but that’s just me.

Still, for the most part, 28 Weeks Later is a pretty good horror film and the issues that I’d had with a couple of it’s points may in fact not be issues at all for others. If you enjoyed the first film, I’d definitely recommend this… and I hope that the speculation is true and Danny Boyle returns to direct the eventual 28 Months Later…