Ten Statements About....AMERICAN PSYCHO 2: ALL-AMERICAN GIRL (2002)

Oh, Mila, Mila...couldn't you have found another DTV
sequel to star in?

“Okay, think about it.  I’m killing the few to save the many, sort of like Robin Hood."

1) One of the biggest problems with this movie that has many problems is how it simply cannot decide what it wants to be.  It seems like it wants to be as satirical and darkly humorous as the original, but it doesn’t have, nor want, the level of subtlety Mary Harron’s original possesses...and yet there are moments where you think director Morgan J. Freeman, or the script by Alex Sanger and Karen Craig (which totally missed the point of the original), believe they’re filming a genuine horror film.  It’s simply a mess....

2) ...and while we’re on the subject of Sanger and Craig’s script, the damn thing can’t even be consistent.  It goes through pains in the first act and change of the story to establish that this is all Mila Kunis’ Rachel’s point of view (even the scene that looks like it couldn’t be is later established as being seen through her eyes)...and yet they gleefully abandon this the moment they realize they have to firmly establish Geraint Wynn Davies’ ineffectual Dr. Daniels as a credible adversary as opposed to William Shatner’s Professor Starkman.  This is a script that doesn’t have the respect for its own world that it needs to have.

3) And speaking of William Shatner--my God, is he good as Starkman!  Shatner is the one actor who seems to be taking this mess seriously, and his performance is the most subtle I’ve seen him in years.  He’s definitely a high point in this film.

4) I really wish I could say the same for Mila Kunis, who is admittedly super-cute...but I think she takes the opposite tack of Shatner, overplaying it to the extreme.  There are a large number of moment when I swore Kunis was imitating Sarah Michelle Gellar at her Buffy-est worst, although I admit I could not tell if she was doing this for some sort of metatextual comic effect. And her monologues have none of the nuance and chill of Bale’s in the original, and are so broad they can’t even be interpreted as parody.

o

It's Mila Kunis driving a car containing a dead William
Shatner.  Your argument is no longer valid.  I guess.

5) There are two ‘twists’ in this braindead little film that are simply not set up in the least, one involving Starkman and one involving Rachel.  These things seem to show up solely because the writers need a little extra stuff to stretch out the running time.  It creates a definite sense of ‘making it up as you go along’ to the film.

6) ....but then, this is a film that’s so sloppy in its execution that it has Rachel murder people in broad daylight and in public places and nothing is made of it until the very end.  And I mean nothing.  It’s not until Dr. Daniels goes to the world’s most ineffectual sherif’s department that anyone thinks anything is wrong.

7) Oh, that fucking soundtrack.  Yes, the original featured a soundtrack that could be obtrusive at time, but that was primarily to reinforce the film’s sense of place and time.  This soundtrack of alt-rock songs keeps intruding on us, as if it’s afraid that we can’t figure out the nuances of the movie without it.  Hell, I like some of the bands on it, but not when they suddenly intrude on every single scene in every single moment.

8) You know how this film annoys me right from the start?  It shows that the writers had no understanding of what the original film was about by ignoring the revelation of the ending and reducing Patrick Bateman to just a normal serial killer.  By hinging the premise of the film on that assumption, it makes the whole film spurious.  Now there is a (very) brief moment where it looks like the writers are going to play on the original film’s conceit, but that moment is discarded immediately so we can return to the too obvious plot.

Look, you know this is the only reason you're considering
watching this movie, so here's another photo of her looking
cute.

9) You know, the biggest problem with Wynn Davies’ Dr. Daniels as the film’s hero--besides the fact that he’s totally ineffectual (and morally wreckless) as a psychiatrist?  He seems to be an after thought.  There’s a strong sense that Starkman should have been the hero of the film, a sense that’s bolstered by Shatner’s performance...but after he’s given his pass out of the movie in an actually pretty good scene, Daniels is shoved into the hero role by default.  And considering the character has not displayed anything to feel positive about, what we can laughingly refer to as the film’s momentum is stopped cold.

10) Okay, this is an unrated direct-to-video sequel, right?  Then why is it so bloodless.  Not that I’m saying gore would have saved this movie, but it seems weird that we don’t get blood and ick in a film as aggressive about its mayhem as it should be.

Overall...a worthless, annoying film that seems to scream and run about like a toddler on a sugar high.  Supposedly, Mila Kunis is embarrassed by this film, which only proves to me that she has a good head on her shoulder.  Avoid.  Avoid a lot.

Ten Statements About....SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT III (aka SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT III: SMOKEY IS THE BANDIT) (1983)

"Noooooo, Colleen Camp!  Don't get into that car!  Your
career will be wrecked for years afterwards!"

"What good is the roadrunner without the coyote? What good would the fox be without the hound? What good is the Bandit without the Smokey?"

1) As shocked as I am to admit this, but this may very well be the single worst film I have ever seen. I don't think I can think of a single thing in this misbegotten ninety-three minutes that is even in the same state as amusing. I did not laugh once during this film, just sat there with my mouth agape in astonishment as the crude, sad and nonsensical parade of crap passed before my eyes.

2) ...and I think the filmmakers figured this out, because the movie takes what seems like forever to start. First we get a sepia-toned clipshow of the previous two films, then a scene that seems somehow retrofitted from the original trailer (since Burt Reynolds had refused to return except for a cameo, the original concept was that Gleason would play both Buford T. Justice and the Bandit), then a montage title sequence of Gleason 'enjoying' retirement before the actual plot begins.

3) One of the major reasons why this is a cinematic form of torture is how Buford is saddled with Mike Henry's Junior throughout the entire movie....and since Buford is the central character, that means the highly annoying, simpering Junior is in almost every single scene. And Junior just sucks any sort of amusement from every one of the sad little scenes. But then, people who just are incapable of being amusing are the bane of this movie.

"Sir, I know the Bandit.  I watched the Bandit.  And you,
sir...you are no Bandit."

4) Take Colleen Camp's Dusty, for example. Now I know Colleen Camp is a good actress, and can be funny...but not here. A large part of the reason for this is that she's been given a character that's a cipher. She's not even given a sketch card of a background like Sally Fields' Carrie was in the first film; she's given a rant in her first moment on screen that I think is supposed to be her back story, but it says almost nothing about her. I particularly like how she has a line about how she moved to this area--most likely to explain her noticable New York accent--but at no point does where she came from comes up. She's thoroughly wretched.

5) But then, it might have worked better if Colleen had Burt Reynolds or Jackie Gleason to play off of as Bandit...but instead we've got Jerry Reed's Snowman, who in some nonsensical twist designed to cover up the fact that Gleason was supposed to play both roles, disguised himself as The Bandit to impede him on his trip. And a little Reed goes a long way...and a lot of Reed is interminable, especially when he's bantering with Colleen Camp. He just won't. stop. talking.

6) You know who else there's way too much of? The Enis family. In the first two films Pat MacCormick and Paul Williams were kinda fun--but they only showed up in small scenes. In this film, we're treated to the two of them enacting all these goofy coyote-like tricks to delay Buford (they're the ones who call in Snowman and get him to dress up like Bandit), and their welcome wears out long before the film is done. And when we get to that bizarre and unfunny sequence in the hotel where they dress up as women...well, it plunges past unfunny into shockingly painful.

"Sir, I'm going to write you a ticket for participating in a movie
so bad it's disgusting...."

7) This movie features some of the most unexciting, nonsensical and boring chase scene not only in the franchise, but maybe ever. They're made all the more unexciting for the way they just happen with no logical reason whatsoever except that director Don Lowery wanted to see Buford jump through a canon or a wall of fire. And even worse is how each of these chase scenes is accompanied by voice over conversations between Buford and Junior which is nowhere near as funny as anyone who made this film think they are.

8) I'm still trying to figure out why some of the scenes, like the one where Snowman, after assuming his Bandit disguise, marries off his dog Fred, even made it to the final shooting script. They stop whatever sad little excuse this film has for momentum absolutely dead...and even with all the overstuffed chase scenes and comedy bits this film has, the momentum is slow enough that they can't afford to have it stopped.

9) That fucking hot sheet motel scene...sigh. Not only does it go on for what seems like forever, not only does it have this smarmy, disapproving tone to it...it simply isn't funny whatsoever. It, like the sequence with the nudist colony, wants you to ogle the nudity and the weird folks parading around (midgets! bodybuilder! Tall nypmhos! girls riding guys like horses!), and yet wants to act all shocked about the goings on. And it features our main characters behaving oddly (in addition to the sight of the transvestite Enises, there's the whole physical business with the fish Buford has been tasked with transporting from Miami to Texas) for no logical reason except that there was some belief it would result in a funny gag.

Uhhhhh, no.

10) I'd like to say that Burt Reynolds cameo is a little better than the shit that precedes it, but Burt appears sad and puffy, and the rationale for the cameo is as poorly thought out as the rest of the film. He's here solely to set up Smokey And The Bandit IV...but thank God that didn't happen until Universal decided to revisit the franchise as a series of TV movies as part of its Action Pack syndication package several years later.

Overall...God, no. Just...no. Your life will be shorter and sadder for exposing yourself to this.

Ten Statements About....STIR OF ECHOES 2: THE HOMECOMING (2007)

Rob Lowe lights a candle for his career
after appearing in this film...

1) I knew I was in trouble with this film when it opened with an overexposed flashback to Rob Lowe's Ted in Iraq. Not because it was an overexposed flashback with artfully blurred sound and stutter-steppy movement...this film was going to be trouble because it was obviously shot on 'film look' video, which means that it would have none of the nuanced cinematorgraphy of the original.

2) And make no bones about it--this film is as subtle as being punched in the face repeatedly. Writer/director Ernie Barbarash seems intent on making sure everything that worked in the first film is discarded here. It's underlit, its scares are arbitrary and without logic, it's in-your-face where the original was subtle, and its lack of a sense of place is so awkward that I didn't realize this took place in the same neighborhood as the original until Lowe downloads an article from the Chicago Tribune.

3) On the plus side, Rob Lowe is so, so much better than this film deserves...and there are these rare moments when you catch sight of Lowe's face, and you realize he knows it as well. His performance is in an entirely different realm than this half-assed piece of crap needed.

4) You know, I don't like Vik Sahay's performance as Lester in Chuck on about the same level as I don't like Jennifer Morrison's as Cameron in House...doesn't mean I enjoy seeing him beaten, set on fire and locked in a dumpster.

5) And then there's the one rather tenuous connection to the original--namely the misguided appearance by an adult Jake Witzky, who self-blinds himself in an attempt to keep out the voices. Zachary Bennett's brief appearance is shouty and abrasive, and is easily the worst thing in an entire garden of awfulness.

6) Someone should have told Mr. Barbarash that the cookie cutter anti-Iraq War Gangsta Rap is not an adequate stand-in for 'Paint It Black'. For that matter....

7) ...while I'm sure Mr. Barbarash wanted to something truly meaningful about how the fallout from 9/11 encouraged racism and hatred, his treatment of this theme is not only winge-worthy in its heavy-handedness, it serves to date the film as quickly as its released. I can watch the original film over ten years later and it still feels new and current and modern. I watch this one and it already feels like a relic.

Beg all you want, Mr. Lewis...you're stuck in this movie.

8) Are we really supposed to have any sympathy for Lowe's wife and kid? Granted, Ben Lewis' overdone pissed-offedness makes him unsympathetic even before we learn he's a murderer...but the fact that his wife, played by the dull and lifeless Marnie McPhail, tries to bully Ted into covering up the murder when she learns about it doesn't make you want to cheer her on. Of course, if these two actors were anything other than, well, mediocre, maybe they'd have been able to get a more interesting reaction out of us.

9) And the funny thing? At its core, all the hubbub at the front end about the Iraq war and Post-Traumatic Stress and the like...is inconsequential. The only reason Barbarash puts it there is as a red herring...but because he puts so much emphasis on it, it hinders the flow of the story. It's the sort of complications that the original avoided (notice how everything that seems to be a red herring, like the thing with the babysitter, all dovetails into Samantha's story). and the ultimate result is that the film feels padded even with its shorter running time.

We couldn't get the rights to LIDSVILLE, so...
FEAR MY TRANSISTOR RADIO!!!

10) I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the special effects scares show none of the thought or intelligence that the original showed...but it is odd how delighted it seems in the extreme gore the original managed to withhold on us.

Overall...In a perfect world, Eric Barbarash would be required by law to report to David Koepp's house so that he could be kicked in the crotch every week for pretending this mess has any sort of connection to his film. As it is, all I can say is...avoid.

Ten Statements About....DOCTOR WHO SEASON SIX, EPISODE TWELVE: CLOSING TIME (2011)

And number one on the list of WHO characters we'd rather
not have seen returned.....

"You know when I was little like you I dreamt of the stars. Yeah. I think it's fair to say, in the language of your age, that I lived my dream. I owned the stage. Gave it a hundred and ten percent. I hope you have as much fun as I did, Alfie."

1) It's good that we've got Matt Smith left to his own devices for a while here...and I admit, I enjoy the conflicted way he insists he's not going to check out the Mystery of The Week while he's, you know, checking out the mystery of the week. It makes it very obvious that helping is ingrained in his nature no matter how isolated he wants to be.

2) I really don't think Craig--a character introduced in 'The Lodger' to give contrast to the sort of life the Doctor usually leads--was a rich enough character to warrant this second look, especially since now he's firmly in the companion mode. Yeah, James Cordon is still up to the task of being Craig, but there's this definite sense that his story was effectively done last time, and his presence hinders the tale rather than helps. This might be why, no matter how many times we've asked for it, we've never seen outstanding one-off characters like Sally Sparrow again...

That, or James Cordon hasn't been called up to Hollywood to appear as the secondary comedy relief in inconsequential movies yet.

3) Now, you see...this is how you handle returning villains. Since we haven't seen the Cybermen in full fetter in several seasons (stray stragglers like the one left to guard the Pandorica aside), there's a sense of excitement in seeing them again. Even if we are seeing them operating out of a mall.

4) I think it's telling concerning this episode that when we get a glimpse of Rory and Amy from afar at the 18 minute mark, I wished we would follow them for a bit.

5) Here's the thing--when we see Smith on his own for a bit, like when he's admitting how old he feels to Alfie, the show slowly wakes up. We get something we haven't gotten for a while in this leg of the season, namely a sense of what the Doctor is thinking about his position now and his coming end. Hell, Smith even does something with his face that makes you realize how old he actually is. I have to wonder if Moffat should have had the courage to let Smith go it alone for a while and not saddle him with a comedy sidekick and a baby.

6) God, the thousand yard stare on Matt Smith's face at times in this episode is truly heart-breaking.

Yep...good ol' fashioned nightmare fuel....

7) I do like the redesigned Cybermat. The problem with Cybermats in the past is that they never looked like much of a threat. But these guys do--not because of the rows of teeth, but the sparks that emerge from said rows of teeth.

8) so, ummm....the Cybermen died because they couldn't handle Craig's emotions for his son?

I'm sorry, that's a little...silly, innit?

9) Attention to detail--the Doctor had a stetson in episode one of this season, and now we know how he got it. It's The Moffat way!

Yep...still totally cute....

10) For a second there, I actually believed in Frances Barber's Madame Kovarian--and then Barber took a big healthy bite of scenery, thus disrupting all the atmosphere director Steve Hughes had built up in the scene. I really hope at least her phase of this story is over, because I never quite bought Kovarian as a serious threat due to Barber's over-the-topness.

In short....yet another uneven episode. What works in it does so firmly because of Matt Smith, and the presence of Craig truly didn't help.

Ten Statements About....BOOK OF SHADOWS: BLAIR WITCH PROJECT II: (2000)

Sorry, Jeffrey..no Sam Axe for you...

"If you don't believe in The Blair Witch, why the Hell did you come?"

"I thought the movie was cool."

1) Joe Berlinger, a documentarian who must have rolled his eyes when given this assignment, actually does the best he can to both 'conform to the reality' of the original film while pretty much telling all of us, 'you know the first film was a load of made-up stuff, right?' Simple tricks like naming the characters similarly to the actors who play them, the inclusion of actual clips and real-like personages as talking heads,designing the film so it looks like a documentary--even creating a title sequence that mirrors Berlinger's own documentary Paradise Lost: The Murders At Robin Hood Hills all contribute to the sense that this could have happened..just as Berlinger is winking at you and telling you it's never did.

2) It is so weird seeing Jeffrey Donovan playing the twitchy, disturbed Jeffrey Patternson. You almost expect him to call up Bruce Campbell to clear this mess up at a moment's notice. He's actually pretty funny at times, and you can see what USA Networks saw when they gave the go-ahead to his casting in Burn Notice...and his flashback to his time in the asylum is just...strange enough to make you realize this is not going to end well.

3) And speaking of it not ending well...Berlinger seems to delight in just piling on the intimations that this is a doomed tour from the beginning. Giving us a full pass into Jeffrey's mind, letting us know this is his first time leading a tour, Kim's admission that she might be a little unstable as well...it wouldn't surprise me if Berlinger approached this as something of a satire of the original hysteria that rose up over the first film.

Believe it or not, Kim Director's Kim is at her sanest when
she's dressed like this...

4) Just as one of the strength's of Myrick and Sanchez' first film was their ability to cast three leads with chemistry and personality, Berlinger seems to have worked hard to get a similar group of actors together. This quartet--besides Donovan, stand-outs include the absolutely hilarious Kim Director as a goth chick who isn't buying into all this and the absolutely gob-stoppingly hot Erica Leershen as an actual witch with some dotty ideas--does have a good give-and-take that helps us buy into the film's gag for most of its running time.

5) ...and I use the word 'gag' deliberately. I honestly don't think that this film was meant to be taken seriously. When you actually listen to some of the stuff that is said--like Erica's intention to beseech the Blair Witch to be her mentor--you realize that this film works best as a satire commenting on what went down around the time of the first film's release.

6) If there is a weak link in this central cast, it is Stephen Barker Turner, who's given the unenviable task of being the group skeptic. And while I get the sense that his character is Berlinger's mouthpiece, and that the points he's making are connected to Berlinger's own views on the matter, he ends up becoming something of a Scully--refusing to accept any counter arguments to his own views.

7) At first I wasn't sure why Berlinger chose to do all these flash forwards to the Really Bad Thing That Happens throughout the first act--but then I realized it was to obscure the moment when it actually happens (for the record, my guess is it happens at the 22 minute mark, when we start seeing Kim's and Tristene Skyler's Trinsten's hallucinations and dreams--just before the rain of paper).

Erica Leershen...mmmmmmm.....

8) I have to wonder if the few creature effects shots were absolutely necessary; they seem out of place in a film where so much of what Berlinger is selling us is based on our perceptions and the unreliability of the narrator--why shout when he's doing just fine whispering how these five people are Not To Be Trusted? Much more effective are the simple tricks, like when Sheriff Craven talks to the group via a pre-taped television report.

9) I am not a fan of Lanny Flaherty's Sheriff Cravens. He's too over-the-top, too obviously playing a part in a movie that every time he shows up it makes the film a bit less smart....

10) It's odd how the real central horror of the third act revolves around how everyone sort of changes places. And the person who comes off the scariest is the least scary member of our crew, Tristin...who becomes the epitome of unhinged just before meeting her fate, daring others to do what she so desperately wants to do herself. Or at least, what others think she wants to do....

Overall...a film that maybe is a little too clever for its own good (the fact that the title refers back to the film itself--something I didn't realize until it was pointed out by Scott Aslin's excellent review of the film--doesn't help any), but still a pretty effective unreliable narrator film. It's certainly the best a sequel could possibly have been to a film that was more of an event than an actual, you know, film.