Halloween II

***1/2**
Three and a Half Stars out of Five

I generally hate any review that has 'X' and half number of stars, but this is one case where I just can't help myself from doing so. "Halloween II," the sequel to Rob Zombie's remake of "Halloween" (that's right, a sequel of a remake) is better than the first film, which I really enjoyed and gave three stars, but it's not "great." As such, it's better than good, but not great. It's a halfsy - this is probably the only review I'll ever write in which a movie is given a half-star in addition to the others that I grant it. Sorry for the preface, but I felt it necessary to state that from the get-go.

As I said, this is a sequel to 2007's "Halloween," which was also written and directed by Rob Zombie. Fans of the series who disliked the first one will absolutely loathe this movie as Zombie continues to move Michael Meyers(the still hulking Tyler Mane) away from evil in the shape of a body of a man to a man who is just evil. Doesn't sound like a big difference does it? But fanboys will be fanboys and will find a way to hate anything that's remotely different from the original version they fell in love with. I've already made clear my stance on remakes - if you're not going to do something quite different from the original, then don't bother remaking it - so I won't elaborate on that any more here. Instead, I'll focus on the movie itself.

It's good. It's actually really good. Disturbing and brutal, but good. Zombie veers off the typical slasher trail here and actually lets us see into the mind of Meyers here, which is something entirely new. Meyers has never been so much a character as a vessel for death and carnage. Zombie instead gives us a monster who has ghostly visions of his mom(Sheri Moon-Zombie) and a white horse. The white horse mythology of the movie itself is interesting; according to some beliefs, white horses in dreams are meant to be messengers of death, and that's obviously what Michael Meyers is. Michael is a twisted individual who wants to make his family whole again (at least the ones he cared about), and his rationale for doing so is by killing his baby sister, who just so happens to be Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton). We learned of this connection in the first movie, but as the sequel begins, Laurie has yet to discover this.


Moving on to a quick synopsis. The movie begins directly after the conclusion of the first one, and it is revealed that Dr. Loomis, Annie, and Laurie have survived. After a disturbing dream sequence, we pick up a year later and see what the survivors are up to. Zombie did a great job here capturing the different ways to handle such a traumatic experience: Dr. Loomis (still played by the scenery-chewing and awesome Malcolm McDowell) has traded in his reputation as a serious doctor to exploit the events of Haddonfield. He's publishing a new book detailing Meyers' rampage throughout the town, and he's become a bit of a self-inflated scumbag. He makes the rounds on the press circuit and is constantly reminding people Michael Meyers is dead, even though a corpse was never found. Laurie's life is in shambles as she tries to pick up the pieces of her shattered life. Her parents are dead, she can't sleep at night, hangs out with douche bag hipsters, and is heavily medicated. She can't get over the experience of being chased down by a masked psycho and having to kill him. Annie (series staple Danielle Harris, also appeared in "Halloween 4" and "Halloween 5") is the most well-adjusted of the survivors. She's pretty much fully recovered, minus several scars on her face, and she is ready to put last Halloween behind her. Laurie has moved in with Annie and her dad, the sheriff, but they don't seem to hang out all that much. Their relationship seems strained, but they're still tied together given their past.


Surprise! Michael Meyers didn't die. He survived being shot in the face - Laurie has pretty bad aim, apparently - and he's living in the middle of nowhere as he gets ready for his favorite holiday. He doesn't wear the mask all the time, instead wearing it only when it's time to "go to work," and even though he's covered mostly in shadows when we see him, it's clear that he's not been practicing good hygiene for the last 363 days. He's got a beard that would make Grizzly Adams blush. On October 29, Michael sets out to reconnect with his baby sister.


That's about it for the set-up of the movie. It doesn't seem like a sweeping story, but the devil, as they say, is in the details. Zombie never explicitly tells us how we should feel about the survivors, but their actions lead us to think about them a certain way. Without ever "picking sides," Zombie lets us watch them and make up our decision about how we should feel. Is it really wrong for Loomis to exploit this situation, or is he simply dealing with the events the only way he knows how? Is Laurie maybe overreacting a bit, considering Annie has re-adjusted to normal life, and she was cut up by Michael Meyers? It's pretty good stuff, considering this is just a slasher flick.


Once the violence sets in, it's pretty gruesome stuff. People are stomped, stabbed, and strangled to death several times throughout the movie, and a few scenes are kind of hard to watch. The sound effects are top notch, as we hear every squishing noise of the knife penetrating some poor schmuck's back. In addition to these noises, Michael is now more vocal when he's killing his victims. He's not talking to his victims, but he grunts every time he stabs somebody. It's a tiny little thing that adds to the horror expontentially; Meyers is exerting himself here, and one gets the idea that he enjoys himself too much, even for a serial killer. Michael also serves his victims with overkill here - he doesn't quickly abandon them when they die, rather he sticks around and stabs them more times that necessary, and it looks like he just gets lost in the moment. Pretty disturbing stuff.


My only real complaint is the mask. I liked that he doesn't wear it non-stop, but early on, a piece of the mask gets ripped off near his right eye, and that eye is clearly exposed for the rest of the movie. I always liked Meyers' eyes being eternally covered in the shadows, and the visibility just makes him a little less threatening here. It's not a huge complaint, but it's something that did indeed rub me the wrong way.


Horror fans will again either love or hate this movie. Rob Zombie has that polarizing effect on people. Count me among those who liked it. It was a great horror movie that delves into the coping mechanisms of trauma, psychosis, and some twisted sense of familial bonding. Check it out, but be warned that this is definitely more brutal than it's predecessor. It's one of the most violent movies I've seen in a while, and though it's not entirely disturbing, it's gory as hell. You've been warned.

Halloween (2007)

*****
Three Stars out of Five

This review is about two years too late, as I'm sure anybody who was interested in seeing this movie has seen it by now. The sequel to this is to be released in theaters Friday, though, so I'm reviewing it now, partly because I wanted to re-watch it before seeing the sequel, and partly to drum up support for the sequel as well.


If you don't know by now that this is a remake of the 1978 classic, then get the hell off my site, and stay off. Seriously, if you're not familiar with Michael Meyers (the first slasher in cinemas), then you really shouldn't ever watch a movie ever again. Michael Meyers is one of horror's most famous icons, and for good reason - his creation kickstarted the entire slasher genre. Without him, we probably wouldn't have Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, or Chucky (okay, Chucky is best left forgotten, but still, he owes a debt to Michael Meyers). By extension, we wouldn't have had the gloriously horrid exploitation flicks of the 80's that involved slutty broads and their dipshit boyfriends getting axed in the most ingenious ways possible. That's right, "Halloween" invented the slasher-staple of "If you're a teenager and you smoke pot, have sex, drink alcohol, or mix any of the three acts together, you're gonna die." The original movie, directed by John Carpenter, had Michael Meyers exist as nothing but a relentless killer - a man who's evil couldn't be explained. He was evil because he was evil. As the years have progressed, many fans of the "Halloween" series have taken to calling him "The Shape," simply because he's not really fit for a human name, as he's just evil personified. If Michael Meyers had to fill out an on-line dating form, under activities, all it would say is: "Likes to kill slutty bitches with butcher knife."


The "Halloween" series quickly left behind the originality of the first movie and devolved into one of the worst franchises in mainstream movies. The third one didn't even feature Michael Meyers, rather a plot surrounding witches. Sadly, that's not the worst turn this series took - that belongs to the last movie in the series before it was re-booted. "Halloween: Resurrection" (2002) actually climaxed with Busta Rhymes karate-chopping Michael Meyers' ass all over the place. Seriously. Busta. Rhymes. Karate. Chopping. Michael. Meyers'. Ass. It is that fucking pathetic. I was incredibly happy when I heard not only were they remaking "Halloween," but Rob Zombie was attached to write and direct it.


In 2005, Rob Zombie delivered one of the most disturbing, intense, and engaging horror movies in recent memory in "The Devil's Rejects." He showed he was not only capable of grossing out his audience, but he could also make them feel empathy for the villains committing such horrific acts of violence. Zombie quickly made it clear that he was "re-imagining" the story of Michael Meyers. The term "re-imagining" has become a buzzword among Hollywood types in these times of remakes, so I was a bit skeptical about the new movie, but still knew it would be better than Busta Rhymes playing Van Damme with Michael Meyers' face. Surprisingly, Zombie did just that - he re-imagined Michael Meyers into a more human character, somebody who is just as much a product of his environment as he is sheer, unfiltered evil.


Instead of seeing a young Michael murder his sister for no apparent reason, this movie opens with us seeing a young Michael wearing a clown mask, torturing a dead rat in his bedroom while his dysfunctional family acts incredibly dysfunctional downstairs. His mom (Sheri Moon-Zombie, Rob's wife) is a stripper who is co-habitating with the dickhead Ronnie (a funny William Forsythe). Ronnie ridicules Michael every chance he gets, calling him a "faggot" quite often. Michael's sister is a slut who also treats her brother like shit. While his mom isn't perfect, she at least cares for him and is making an effort to better their position in life. Michael does, however, have a tremendous amount of love for his little sister, Boo, who is only a few months old. Michael's situation at school isn't any better, as he is constantly bullied by upper-classmen, who have an arsenal of insults to throw at Michael considering his mom's a stripper. The school discovers that Michael has been mutilating small rodents and calls his mom into the office to meet with a psychologist, Dr. Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell). Loomis explains that this mutilating is usually a precursor to much more violent activity, and that he would like to meet Michael in hopes of working out his issues. Michael skips out of school and ambushes one of his bullies in the woods, beating him to death with a big stick. That night happens to be Halloween, and with his mom at work, Michael snaps again and kills Ronnie (in pretty gruesome fashion), his slutty sister, and her boyfriend. Along the way, he finds a creepy mask that he decides to adopt. When mom comes home, she's welcomed by three corpses and a son who doesn't seem the least bit upset about his actions.


Michael is shipped off to a mental institution, and he spends the next 15 years in and out of therapy with Dr. Loomis. Michael doesn't utter one word over these 15 years, and Loomis eventually can't take anymore. He tells Michael he can no longer be his doctor, and Michael (now a hulking seven foot man, played by Tyler Mane) stares blankly at him through a papier-mache mask and long, stringy hair. That night just so happens to be October 30, and the hospital just so happens to be shipping Michael to another institution. Michael escapes (gasp!) and immediately heads back to Haddonfield to find his sister (his mom shot herself years earlier due to the stress of having Satan for a son, thus beginning Michael's silent treatment towards the world).

This is about the point in the movie where it starts to more closely resemble the original it was modeled after. Michael rediscovers his old home and mask and begins hunting for his sister. Loomis is hot on his trail, and what follows is pretty standard horror fare, but it's told very briskly and the death scenes are brutal and visceral. Sure, there are plot holes the size of the Octo-Mom's vagina, like how the hell does Michael know Laurie (the awesomely-named Scout Taylor-Compton) is his little sister, but that doesn't really matter in the confines of a horror movie. If a horror movie can keep me on the edge of my seat, I'm more than willing to forgive some plot holes here and there.


Many fans of the series openly loathe Zombie's take on Michael Meyers, but I enjoy it. I figure, if you're going to remake a movie, you might as well make it different enough to justify it's existence. Zombie does that here; he's not concerned with telling the same story, he's concerned with telling his own version of Michael Meyers. I commend Zombie for being ballsy enough to doing something that was obviously going to have it's fair share of detractors. He also does a great job of re-creating the iconic mask that has been so popular for years - it's noticeably more weathered here, and the eyes are even more impossible to see, making Mane's entirely physical performance and Michael really awesome to watch. He's an imposing man, yet there are scenes in the movie where he actually tries to open up to someone, and you can see it in his performance. The most engaging scene in the entire movie - where Michael captures Laurie, and instead of trying to kill her, he offers her his hand - would not be nearly as good if it weren't for the tiny movements Mane makes.

The movie does have some pacing issues, notably in the third act, as it feels unnecessarily padded for time. Some scenes could have been trimmed significantly, and that would have made it a tighter movie altogether. However, it is a fun horror movie that puts a new spin on something old. I'm excited to see where Zombie takes the sequel - based on the trailers, it seems he's really taking it somewhere new - and I don't hesitate to re-watch this movie on a rainy day. Look out for my review of "Halloween 2" on Friday.

Last House on the Left (2009)

*****
Two Stars out of Five

So it goes without saying that "Last House on the Left" is a remake of the 1972 "classic" from Wes Craven. I put quotations around the word "classic," because somewhere along the way, the movie got dubbed so for being one of the first realistic horror movies - by that I mean no zombies, monsters, or other-worldly killers here. The original has survived all these years on the reputation of being nigh-unwatchable for it's grotesque violence committed on the female characters in the film. Viewed by today's standards, the movie flat-out sucks. The acting is horrendous, even for a B-movie horror flick, the violence is nothing compared to any Japanese horror film released in the last 10 years, and the quality of the film is atrocious. I am willing to forgive such inadequacies in a movie that was made on a shoe-string budget by a crew that had yet to truly understand film. Therefore, in these days of remakes (they're already remaking "The Crow," which was made in 1993... yay Hollywood!!!), if ever a movie could do with a remake, "Last House on the Left" surely qualified.

I skipped the flick in theaters as the trailer didn't do it any favors, but as the DVD reviews started trickling in, I started to rethink my decision. I had read several reviews claiming how it was much better than the original, and how it was hard to watch due to the acts of sexual violence on the women, yet it was ultimately worth it to watch the evil fuckers responsible for said sexual violence get their just desserts. So, tonight, my girlfriend and I watched it.

The movie opens with the Collingwoods heading out to their lake house - it just so happens to be the last house on the left, in case you're wondering where the title comes from. John (Tony Goldwyn), the family's patriarch, is a doctor, and a damned good one based on the introduction we're given. His wife, Emma (Monica Potter), is... blonde. Yep, that's about as much of her character as we get to know. The family is rounded out by Mari (Sara Paxton), who is a capable swimmer. The family decides to get away from the city on vacation after dealing with the loss of their son, Ben. Don't ask me how he died, because the movie never tells. Upon getting to the lakehouse, Mari heads into town to meet up with her old friend Paige. Paige and Mari then follow some male youngster named Justin back to his motel room to score some pot (even today, horror film staples like smoking pot inevitably lead to something terrible occurring). They get high in the motel room and are having a grand old time when Justin's dad Krug (Garrett Dillahunt), uncle Francis, and Kruf's girlfriend (?) Sadie show up. Krug just escaped from police custody, and they're trying to stay incognito whilst evading the authorities. This is bad news for Mari and Paige. These three bastards are sadistic fuckers. What ensues is indeed hard to watch, and Mari barely escapes this encounter.

Krug and his gang believe that Mari is taken care of and stop at a lakehouse for the night, due to a bad storm in the area. The house they happen to stop at is the Collingswoods. John and Emma slowly realize that they're housing the sadistic sons of bitches who raped and violated their daughter and "decide" to take justice into their own hands.

The story isn't anything Shakespeare would write, and the characters are about as deep as a half-inch puddle, but this is a horror movie, so I'm more than willing to forgive such arbitrary aspects of film like plot and character development. The only thing I ask for in exchange is some good gore and a righteous come-uppance in the end. This film delivers barely that, and while it does have a few highlights, it has more than it's fair share of lowlights. The premise is ripe for drama, and any parent would do terrible things to their daughter's rapist(s). This drama, however, is gleamed over, and the movie quickly devolves into another stupid slasher-hybrid in which the bad guy proves incredibly hard to kill. Had the filmmakers taken a more cerebral approach, audiences could have been treated to the psychological ordeal parents would face in experiencing an event as traumatic as this. Instead, we're given glimpses of this, but it's thrown by the wayside for standard horror-fare. Only one of the bad guys really gets it (and that death alone almost bumps the movie up a whole star) while the others are dispatched in routine, albeit time-consuming, manners.

None of the bad guys are particularly engaging. They're sick fuckers, that's for sure, but that's really all we're given. Krug is the smartest of the bunch, but that in and of itself is a backhanded compliment - he's the smartest of a bunch of retards. Good for him. Francis is a dipshit who happily follows every order his brother gives him, even if it doesn't make much sense. Justin, even though not a villain, is a tremendously ridiculous character whom I was hoping would get axed. He watches as his father and his cohorts rape, stab, and beat two innocent girls without actively trying to stop them. Sure, he cries for them and is obviously affected by the ordeal, but he doesn't ever do anything to dissuade his dad from committing such atrocities. In the end, I felt like he was an accessory to the crimes, not truly innocent. It doesn't help that he's uncharismatic to boot, just another brooding teenager who happens to have some damn good pot. And there's a special place in hell for writers who create characters like Sadie. Holy shit, I want to rip my goddamn eyes out after having to watch this chick for any amount of time. Riki Lindhome portrays Sadie here, and I don't know if I should feel sorry for her as an actress for this. She looks like absolute shit, a hybrid between a gothic chick and a dead skinned cat. It doesn't help that she's an annoying bitch who is constantly looking for reassurance from Krug, even helping her boyfriend (again, I don't know if they're dating or not, I'm just assuming, because they sleep together) rape a teenager for reasons I can't understand. Sadie is indeed a thankless role, and a part of me does feel sorry for Lindhome for having to play such a shitty role, yet conversely, I have no sympathy for any woman who actually signs on to do this garbage.

After having to endure a horrible rape scene, I wanted to see these assholes get tortured "Hostel-style," to see them begging for their miserable lives, to see them in pain. Again, there are glimmers of hope here, but nothing solid. In the end, it's just a frustrating experience that's hard to watch. With characters as broadly written as this, the least I can expect is to see the bad guys get really burned. I find it hard to reccommend this movie to anybody other than the most die-hard gorehounds and horror fanatics. This wasn't the type of horror flick that had shades of black comedy, and it wasn't the type that made you cheer at any point (like the fun and ridiculous "Friday the 13" remake). No, it was just painful to watch. The film gets two stars out of five for above-average genre acting, and one awesome kill scene.

District 9

*****
Four Stars out of Five

Well, what started off as one of the worst summer movie seasons in history is ending with a bit of a bang. August is generally viewed (rightfully so) as the weakest of the four months that make up the summer movie season, and this year felt to be similar to ones past. The only bright spots seemed to be "District 9" and "Inglourious Basterds." However, the first weekend of August welcomed the big-screen adaptation of guaranteed suckfest "G.I. Joe," and it, surprisingly, didn't suck. It was actually pretty damn cool, even if it mostly appealed to the little five year old who still lives in me somewhere. I knew "Inglourious Basterds" wouldn't disappoint, so by August 8th, I knew the month would have at least two solid entries. I had faith that a little flick called "District 9" would make it at least three.

"District 9" was first brought to my attention about a year ago, after hearing of the whole "Halo" movie fiasco. Peter Jackson was all set to produce the movie, and Neil Blomkamp was attached to direct. Somewhere along the line, Microsoft decided to abandon the project, yet Jackson saw something special in Blomkamp. Thank fucking Christ he did. Jackson threw $30 million at Blomkamp and basically said, "Make the best movie you can with this money." Again, thank fucking Christ he did. Blomkamp seized the opportunity and made a wholly original sci-fi epic that forces it's viewers to confront issues of prejudice, hatred, and alternate point of views, all while treating said viewers to some stellar action set pieces and some of the best special effects work ever seen in film.

"District 9" opens up as a documentary-style film (don't worry, no "Cloverfield-esque" shaky cam here) introducing us to an alternate timeline in which twenty years ago, a mysterious alien ship landed over the South African city of Johannesburg. The aliens eventually exited the ship and were placed in their own area of the city dubbed "District 9." Tensions flared over the years, as several separate factions of the city took opposing viewpoints of what to do with these new "immigrants." There is also a hint of a worldwide conundrum, as powerful governments throughout the world do not know how to handle the situation. As time passes, the citizens of Johannesburg get increasingly anxious and tired of their new neighbors, nicknamed "Prawns" for their slight resemblance to the sea creature. With Distrct 9 becoming overpopulated and increasingly dangerous, a private company named Multi-National United (MNU) step in to relocate the alien race. The company's CEO appoints his son-in-law, Wikus van der Merwe, to carry out the project, and thus, sets the story in motion. Several of the "Prawns" are opposed to being herded around like cattle, and wish to stay where they are. Others are confused and obey the orders given them. Others are openly hostile and hurt the soldiers and messengers telling them of their upcoming eviction. More still, there is a small group of aliens that want to get back home and save all of their people. While informing the "Prawns" of their eviction, Wikus is exposed to alien biotechnology and the consequences of this threaten to change not only District 9, but the entire world, forever...

In my reviews, I try to leave out as much as I can in hopes of sustaining the suspense for first-time viewers. My quick synopsis above does a terrible job of setting up the film, even if it does get the basic plot beats right. The premise itself is nothing too original - how many time have we seen the story of a man who has contempt for a certain populace, only to learn the error of his ways and then embrace and defend them? It's a story that's been told a hundred times before, but Blomkamp does such a tremendous job of building up this world that it is easy to forgive the familiarity. "District 9" looks like a real place, and the way that it is shot makes us feel as if it is. The characters behave like you would expect somebody to in similar circumstances, and it's hard not to identify with Wikus.

Wikus is played by newcomer Sharlto Copley. When I saw "newcomer" I don't mean he's been in a few indie flicks here and there, or he's been on some TV show for years. No, this guy has never acted professionally before, but you wouldn't know it based on his performance. I generally hate stupid cliches like stating someone's performance is a "tour de force," but I'm hard-pressed to find a better phrase to describe it. When we are introduced to Wikus, we see him as a dork, a fellow who was just lucky enough to be sleeping with the boss' daughter. His incompetence is on display from the moment we meet him; in the early scenes, he shares quite the resemblence to Steve Carrell's Michael Scott on "The Office." He's a man who is pretty unaware of his surroundings, and clearly thinks he knows more than he does. However, Wikus seems like a real person, someone who has faults, but is still lovable. Copley's ability to play an everyman is what the film hinges on - if we don't care about Wikus, we don't care about the movie. Through the changes he undergoes throughout the film, we learn to care deeply about him and the trouble he finds himself in. There is one scene in particular in which Wikus learns he can never be with his wife again. This scene really tug at my heart strings, and it's because of Copley. He doesn't say anything, but the tears in his eyes, and the pain subtly hidden behind them is palpable. At that moment, you want to cry, to change this poor man's life so he can go back to his plain, uneventful life.

While the dramatic weight is thrusted upon Wikus' back, the reason many will seek this movie out is due to the aliens. Thanks to superb special effects, and Blomkamp's deft ability to create an entire world within just minutes of screen time, the audience believes these creatures exist. They look great on the screen, and they speak in clicks and clacks that we don't understand. They move like you would expect something that looks like this to move. They behave like any sentient creature would in their situation. It is an amazing accomplishment to create an alien race that feels realistic, and Blomkamp does it with aplomb. The main alien character, Christopher Johnson, and his son are sympathetic characters. Christopher loves his son, and his people. He wants nothing more than to end their suffering, and he's willing to sacrifice his life to do so. Christopher is an intriguing character, and my only complaint about him is that I didn't get to know him well enough.

There are several great set pieces that push the story forward, including a climactic battle between Wikus in a robotic suit and the MNU soldiers in pursuit. Blomkamp's creativity and orginality again elevate these sequences above standard action fare. Blomkamp has created an entire arsenal of weaponry belonging to the aliens, and they do not disappoint. Expect a lot of exploding bodies here.

Overall, Blomkamp is a breath of fresh air. He's something new, and I hope he doesn't get pulled into the typical Hollywood bullshit for his next project, or any time in the future. One wonders how this concept would have played out in the hands of somebody else - it would have probably taken place in LA or New York, and been dumbed down to the level of retardation. Thankfully, Blomkamp understands that movies don't have to be stupid to be fun. They don't have to be boring to be interesting. "District 9" is one of the best movies I've seen all year, and it is easily the best sci-fi movie I've seen in ages. I can't even remember the last sci-fi movie that impacted me as much as this. See this movie! It's everything you could ever ask for in a sci-fi flick!

My thoughts on reviews and how they are quanitified...

Reviews are shitty. They really are, that's just a fact of life. They are shitty because they are opinions. Opinions are shitty, too. See, everybody has opinions, which means that everybody has dissenting opinions. As such, you're not going to agree with me all of the time. That's okay, I'm just voicing my opinion, and I encourage you to do the same. We can disagree on movies, video games, comics, music, or anything else that is meant to entertain us. Just remember that when opinions on such things are made, they're not attacking you, they're critiquing something, and if you like it, then that is swell. I might not, but that doesn't make me feel like I'm a better human being than you are. I might be, but that's beside the point...

People will always tell you that you're entitled to your opinion because it's just how you feel, and it's not fact, so it's okay to feel a certain way. That's generally true, but there are occasions when opinions are wrong. Many will disagree with that statement, but it's true. If you're of the opinion that a certain group of people should die just because they are a different skin color, or have different beliefs, then that is a wrong opinion. It doesn't matter if it's just emotion or how you feel. That is wrong. Sorry, but them's the facts, people. Like if you say, "The Godfather" is a bad movie. You might not like it, but it's not bad. There's a difference here.

However, I will not spend any time here arguing against racism, social prejudices, or anything else that doesn't involve mediums of entertainment. I'm just illustrating a point that opinions can be wrong. I will focus most of my reviews on comics and movies, as those are my two favorite forms of entertainment. Everything is based on a five-star scale. The rating is as follows:

0 Stars - Abysmal, the absolute worst example of it's kind.
1 Star - Very Bad, very few redeeming qualities, if any.
2 Stars - Bad, but has a few good spots; watchable/readable.
3 Stars - Good. A fun way to spend an afternoon, but it's disposable fun.
4 Stars - Great. Has faults, but very few. Will be remembered for years to come.
5 Stars - Best of the Best. It will go down in history as head of the class.

See, I'll rarely ever give a 5-star or 0-star rating. 4 Stars is great, basically the best. However, 5 stars is reserved for the rare ones that come along and change the way the medium is perceived. Just because I give a movie a 4-star review doesn't mean I don't love it. There's a chance that a 4-star review will become one of my favorite movies.

This leads me directly to my next point. In the rare event I do award anything 5-Stars, it's based entirely on that piece of entertainment. I would give "Ocean's 11" 5 stars, and I would also give "The Godfather" 5 stars. That doesn't mean that in my eyes, "Ocean's 11" is just as good as "The Godfather," it simply means that "Ocean's 11" is perfect for what it is. The same can be said for "The Dark Knight." It's not as Earth-shattering as, say, "Casablanca," but both movies are 5-stars in my eyes, because they are perfect for their genre, and they accomplish everything they set out to do perfectly.

So, when I rate "Transformers" 4 stars along with, let's say, "Casino," I'm not stating they're in the same class. "Transformers" is far inferior to "Casino," yet it is a fun fucking movie and is a personal action favorite. It is important to view these movies in relation to their genres. I hope this kind of clears things up for future reference.

Inglourious Basterds

*****
Four Stars out of Five


Well, it's finally here. The movie Tarantino has been teasing fans with for over a decade. The movie that he's always wanted to make. He finally got to make the damn thing, and it was never a question of "if" it would fail to meet it's ridiculously high expectations, it was simply a matter "how disappointing is it?" The answer to that question is easy: Not very.

I need to preface this review by stating that this movie (and it is a movie, not a film... more on that later) is not what you think it is. Not even fucking close, if you've seen any of the previews, TV spots, or hell, even the movie posters. You're led to believe that what Quentin Tarantino and Co. have made is a two and a half hour long movie of watching Jewish-American soldiers scalping and brutally murdering Nazis is France during WWII. In actuality, we get about eight minutes of this, but that's not the point. Tarantino movies are never really what you think they're going to be - "Kill Bill" was a revenge-based movie in which The Bride struggles with actually killing Bill; not exactly what you'd expect from a movie with that title. "Reservoir Dogs" is a heist movie that doesn't even show the heist, it's about the aftermath. "Death Proof" was supposed to be a slasher movie centered on a psychotic stunt man who crashes his car into unsuspecting women; Stuntman Mike turned out to be a pussy. See, that's what special about a director like Quentin Tarantino. He takes your expectations, builds them up through marketing, and then once you finally get to see the movie, he essentially skull-fucks your expectations into submission by delivering something very unexpected. However, in this modern age of the internet, everything gets spoiled eventually, so it is nice to be able to see something unexpected every once in a while. Your expectations need to be thrown aside before you see this movie to truly enjoy it, otherwise you'll simply be let down by the fact that you expected non-stop Jew-on-Nazi violence.

Shifting gears, I want to talk about what the movie is not what it isn't. It is an "alternate-reality" take on WWII and several factions of individuals during this era. The eponymous (and certainly most-loved) group is the Basterds, a squad of Jewish-American soldiers led by Lt. Aldo Raine (a spectacular Brad Pitt, more on that later), whose sole job is to kill Nazis. Then there is Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) of the SS who is nicknamed the "Jew Hunter." Shosanna Dreyfuss (Melanie Laurent) is the Jewish girl who escapes from Landa and goes on to run a cinema in Paris - the location of the premiere Goebbels' latest propaganda film. The other "main" character is Bridget Von Hammersmack (Diane Kruger), a British double-agent undercover as a German actress, whose job it is to get the Basterds into the film premiere.

For fear of heavy-duty spoilers, I will forego any more attempts at a plot synopsis and instead analyze the film's acting, writing/directing, and pacing issues. As is typical of every Tarantino flick, the acting here is, well, fucking amazing. Seriously, like, other-worldly, Holy-motherfucking-fuck-amazing. If Christoph Waltz and Brad Pitt - hell, even Eli Roth - don't get Oscar nominations for their performances, I'll give up on the Academy forever. Brad Pitt as Aldo Raine is a revelation. The moment you see him on screen, his tabloid-fodder wife and 34 kids disappear. He's not especially handsome here, either, which helps contribute to the overall bad-ass aura surrounding him. Pitt brings a level of confidence to the role that makes you wonder who the hell else could have played Aldo Raine. He's got a southern drawl here, and his delivery is spot-on for every single word he says. I thought Pitt was excellent in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" last year (I still think that it was the best film of the year, but that's another story for yet another time), but this is easily his best performance since "Fight Club," perhaps even eclipsing that here. Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa is perhaps even better. You want this fucker to die every time he's on screen, but he's just so... intoxicating as the evil bastard that you kind of want to buy him a strudel before shooting him. Waltz, whom I've never even heard of before, is incredibly adept at balancing the audience between endearment and utter contempt that one might be so bold as to say this is on par with Anthony Hopkins in "Silence of the Lambs." What could have been a cardboard cut-out villain is transformed into a multi-faceted, completely fleshed-out character here, and a lot of that has to do with Waltz's performance.

While Waltz and Pitt will receive most of the fanfare for their performances, everyone else in the film ranges from good to excellent. I would be completely remiss if I failed to mention Eli Roth here. The writer/director of horror flicks like "Cabin Fever" and both "Hostel" and "Hostel: Part II" hits a home run (you'll get this pun after watching the movie) as Donny Donowitz, nicknamed the "Bear Jew." Roth gained 35 pounds of muscle for the role, and completely transformed into a bat-wielding, blood-lusting soldier. He steals every scene he appears in, and the look on his face - and subsequent comments - when he sees Adolf Hitler at the premiere is priceless. Diane Kruger and Melanie Laurent both turn in serviceable performances as the main women in the flick, yet neither will be made huge stars because of this. Another notable performance is BJ Novak (Ryan, on "The Office"), as one of the Basterds. His dry delivery works wonders here, and he gives the audience several moments of black comedy gold.

When talking about Tarantino, three things are always a given - 1.) He always has great acting (see above). 2.) His dialogue is second to none. And 3.) The guy will never get over his pacing issues as a director. As I've already conquered the acting aspect of "Basterds," it's time to talk about the script. It's fucking glorious (or is it "glourious?"). Nobody can write characters like QT. Nobody. Every scene involving the Basterds and/or Landa jump right off the screen, and a lot of that is attributed to the words QT has written for them. However, some of it struggles as a good 2/3 of the movie is in subtitles. It's hard for me to appreciate witty sentences when I'm reading them on the screen, and not being able to understand what's be enunciated because the actor is speaking in German or French. This has never been a problem for QT before, as all of his previous movies were predominantly English-speaking movies, yet it can be a problem here.

Then, there's the issue of the movie's pacing. It's over two and a half hours long, and it probably doesn't need to be. If there's anything I know about QT, it's that the guy can't kill babies. One of the first things they teach you at film school - I wanted to go, but reality set in - is that you have to be willing to cut any scene, even if it's your favorite, if it slows down the narrative. These scenes become a director's "baby" and sometimes, they have to kill their babies in order for the film to be more cohesive, and better paced. QT never kills his babies, sometimes at the detriment of the narrative. "Kill Bill" was split into two parts because he couldn't trim any of the fat (I'm not complaining here, I just wanted to point out a couple examples), and "Death Proof" was at least 20 minutes too long. This is an issue, yet again, in "Inglourious Basterds." There are certain scenes that could have been eliminated, and others that needed to be trimmed for conciseness. Tarantino loves long, meandering scenes only to punctuate their conclusions with unexpected violence, or something comparatively shocking. He succeeds about 75% of the time here, with that remaining 25% of scenes lasting just a little too long.

At the end of the day, "Inglourious Basterds" is not a movie for everyone. In fact, I suspect that a large majority of the opening weekend populace will be disappointed, or flat out dislike it. That's fine, but don't count me among them. While it's not quite the masterpiece I'd wanted, or been waiting for, it's still the year's best movie so far, and is sandwiched, for me, somewhere in between "Jackie Brown" and "Reservoir Dogs." It's a four star movie out of five, and it's damn good. Go watch it if you enjoy great acting, can handle quite a bit of violence, and are willing to take some historical mash-ups in place of accuracy.

Tarantino's filmography for me now ranks something like this:
1.) Pulp Fiction
2.) Jackie Brown
3.) Inglourious Basterds
4.) Reservoir Dogs
5.) Kill Bill vol. 1 & 2
6.) Death Proof


---------------SPOILERS--------------------------------

For those who have seen the movie, or don't mind spoilers, it goes without saying that "Inglourious Basterds" rewrites history by having the Basterds kill Hitler, Goebbels, Boorman, and more Nazi scum in a movie theater. I can see how some might be offended by this change in history, but it is important to remember that QT is a movie-maker, not a filmmaker. He's in the business of telling entertaining stories that are engaging, fun, and thought-provoking. Not factual. I can't imagine another ending for this particular movie, and there is certainly something cathartic about seeing the Bear Jew shooting Hitler and Goebbels with a machine gun, and then continuing to shoot their bloodied faces once they're dead. This is an entirely fictional story that just so happens to include some real people in it. It's incidental. The movie doesn't proclaim to be historically accurate. It's just a movie. But it's a good fucking movie.