R.I.P. Karl Malden

One of the greatest performers of the 20th century, Mr. Karl Malden, has passed away at the age of 97.  I’ll always remember Malden for his incredibly moving performance as Father Barry in Kazan’s “On the Waterfront.” Never since has a character of such moral strength mixed with embittered humanity been portrayed so beautifully.  He was amazing on screen with Brando, and even though he won the Oscar for “A Streetcar Named Desire,” it’s his work with Kazan and Brando that always astounds me. We will miss you Karl.

R.I.P. Michael Jackson

Homer Simpson: How do you do that thing with your feet?
Leon Kompowsky: You mean the moonwalk?
Homer Simpson: No, that thing with your feet.

Academy Expands Best Picture Noms to 10!

This is incredibly interesting news. I haven’t posted news in a long time as I’ve been focusing more on writing criticisms and reviews (I’ll have them up soon, after I see what is being considered the abomination that is “Transformers 2″).

But the fact that the AMPAS is going to expand their best picture nominations to a whopping ten is fairly intriguing. Will there be ten films worthy of nominations? Will this change the politics of the Academy itself? For fans of the Oscars, this is huge news – for the huge percentage of Americans who don’t care about the Oscars, this could be hit or miss. Had ten noms been in the rule book last year, “The Dark Knight” would have been a contender and ratings would shoot through the roof. Is the Academy extending the noms to let in more films like TDK? For now, nobody knows.

Here’s the original Variety article for your reading pleasure:

Oscar expands best pic noms to 10
Ganis announces change to Academy Awards
By CYNTHIA LITTLETON

Oscar is opening up his playing field in a big way next year.

The Motion Picture Academy announced Wednesday that for the first time in more than 65 years, the field of best picture nominees will be expanded to 10 contenders for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards.

“Having 10 best picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize,” said Acad prexy Sid Ganis in announcing the shift. “I can’t wait to see what that list of 10 looks like when the nominees are announced in February.”

The last time the Oscar race featured 10 best pic contenders was the 16th annual contest in 1943, when “Casablanca” emerged with the top prize. There were 10 best pic noms for most of the Academy Awards’ first decade. In 1935 there was a bumper crop of 12 nominees.

Acad’s decision will undoubtedly add heat to next year’s Oscar campaigning, especially in a year when no obvious front-runners have emerged in the first half. The move also comes on the heels of biz complaints that the Acad’s rule of limiting the pic nominees to the top five vote-getters elbows out some of the more popular titles, such as last year’s B.O. champ “The Dark Knight.”

Oscar noms will be announced Feb. 2 with the awards handed out March 7 at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood.

Review: Star Trek

It has happened again – the rebirth of an established series that has gone sour and is born anew in the hands of a master craftsman. First it was the new age of Batman with Christopher Nolan’s dual magnum opuses and now, for both a generation of old Trekkies/Trekkers and a whole new era of fans, director J.J. Abrams has brought his reboot of “Star Trek”, simply titled as such, to the screen. “Star Trek” is a major science fiction achievement – a real surprise treat with an exceptional cast led by an electric performance by Chris Pine as Kirk. So far, it’s one of the best films of the year.

For those who aren’t caught up in the series – it doesn’t technically matter. This film starts at the very beginning. Prefacing with the birth of Kirk and then transitioning into the two parallel stories of Kirk and Spock’s childhood, Abrams engages us immediately into the story.

Young Kirk (Jimmy Bennett) is introduced as a rebel, the kind who takes his stepfather’s sports car out for a joy ride and crash test, whereas young Spock (Jacob Kogan of “Joshua”) is presented as the incredibly intelligent Vulcan who is constantly in a struggle with his half-human self. The two grow up and into fully fleshed out characters. Spock (“Heroes” Zachary Quinto) has become somewhat bitter of his reputation as an incomplete Vulcan, and Kirk (now played by Pine) has grown up to become a charismatic cad with a knack for bar fights. After one particular bar fight, Kirk meets Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), who opens the door to Starfleet, and to his future.

The plot centers around the formation of the first crew of the NCC 1701, and their fight against their first foe – the time-traveling villain Nero (a magnetic Eric Bana), hell bent on revenge against future Spock (a scene-stealing Leonard Nimoy), whom he blames for the destruction of his home planet of Romulus.

Along for the ride are classic characters such as linguistics officer Nyota Uhura (Zoë Saldana), helmsman Hikaru Sulu (John Cho), ensign Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin) and the oft-complaining (“I’m a doctor, not a physicist!”) Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban). The cast is excellent. Each member of the crew is in perfect form, each a glorious rendition of beloved characters that in some ways make them more interesting than the originals. Most impressive of this particular group is Urban, who injects a much-needed dose of humor and steals every scene he’s in.

A pleasant surprise is the inclusion of Simon Pegg (“Shaun of the Dead,” “Spaced”) as the brilliant engineer Montgomery Scott a.k.a. Scotty. In the original series, Scotty wasn’t a cause of comic relief, he just became an effect. Over time, as Scotty’s dire situations became oddly familiar each time, his role became written with a comedic tone. This tone is utilized with terrific comic timing by Pegg who never takes it over-the-top.

The star of the film is undoubtedly its captain. Pine doesn’t re-imagine Kirk, nor does an impression of William Shatner. Instead, Pine’s Kirk is a more charming leader and something of an accidental hero. Pine’s depiction is raw – a force of nature. He’s a leader you can follow, who has flaws anyone can identify with, most importantly the control of ones ego. Pine fleshes out the character of Kirk in a way no one could expect anyone other than Shatner could. This film will make Pine a star, and deservedly so.

As for the portrayal of Spock, who is unquestionably the most popular science fiction character of all time, Quinto’s performance is admirable. One can nitpick at the fact that Spock is portrayed with too much emotion – but through most of the film, Quinto tones it down enough for us. The biggest problem with the film is personal. One subplot added by Abrams is a love interest between Spock and Uhura – a notion never suggested in “Trek” canon. This may not perturb non-fans, but as a lifelong devotee of the series – it was a little odd to see the two characters become intimate.

But these are just little petty complaints from a quibbling fan. In fact, this critic doesn’t really care about the changes. In fact, after this film – I welcome change. The main plot runs along the idea that this is a completely new timeline as affected by the plotting of Nero. So, in actual fact, everything event-wise is altered – the only remaining aspect of the original canon is that of characterization, which everyone basically nails.

A new timeline is exactly what “Star Trek” needed to do. Hardcore fans may be in an uproar about it, but they should be excited rather than upset. This opens the door to a whole new series. Abrams “Star Trek” is an excellent film. The special effects are eye-popping, the technology is intriguing, the music is superb (and memorable), the script is both comic and fun and again, the cast is perfect. If Abrams had bombed, “Star Trek” would be a dead series. Instead, fellow Trekkies and Trekkers can now celebrate that their love has been reborn again as a pop culture icon that can permeate into a whole new legion of people who would have never given the likes of Kirk and Spock a chance. Hopefully, those who aren’t familiar with the series before seeing this new film will be influenced to watch the rest that “Trek” history has to offer.

One fun thing about Abrams movie is its non-exploitative usage of famous lines and aspects of the show in his new film as “easter eggs” for traditional fans – a red shirt dies on an outing, young Spock sports green blood after a fight, Sulu wields a sword and supposedly, even a tribble makes an appearance. One bittersweet feature is the usage of the late Majel Barrett Roddenberry’s voice as the computer.

This is a very exciting time in “Trek” history. The only question is not if another film will be made – but when? Abrams has a responsibility to uphold the reputation of this film to return for a second – it would be like throwing everything away (i.e. Bryan Singer not returning for the third “X-men”). Will Abrams boldly go where no one has gone before and turn “Trek” into the film series it deserves to be, or will he just boldly blow?

Grade: A

Review: Adventureland

It’s always the worst experiences in life that make us who we are. In “Adventureland,” a group of college students find that the worst job they could have ever imagined – a deplorable carnival, where the corn dogs are smarter than the guests – might actually be the best time of their entire lives.

Jesse Eisenberg (“The Squid and the Whale”) stars as James Brennan, a recent college graduate, excited to move to a New York apartment and his postgraduate work at Columbia. Unfortunately, after his alcoholic father gets demoted, James must find a summer job. Having never been employed in a real job, and being a fresh-faced college graduate, James is quite naïve when it comes to job hunting – often showing up with SAT scores and high expectations for the most menial of interviews.

Eventually, James gets a job at Adventureland as a game operator. His new co-workers include his bizarre married couple bosses Bobby (Bill Hader) and Paulette (Kristen Wiig), the introverted yet bitingly sarcastic Joel (Martin Starr), the crotch-punching obsessed Frigo (Matt Bush) the local celebrity/maintenance worker Connell (Ryan Reynolds) and most importantly, the strangely alluring, but psychologically imbalanced Em (Kristen Stewart). He quickly becomes friends with all his fellow carnies, as they all have two very similar interests – they all hate Adventureland, and they all smoke a lot of weed.

The film is director Greg Mottola’s third major feature, after 1996’s “The Daytrippers” starring Liev Schreiber and Parker Posey, and 2007’s hit “Superbad,” which starred Jonah Hill and Michael Cera. While the latter film had its unquestionably side-splitting moments and birthed the iconic “Mclovin,” in comparison – “Adventureland” proves a much more mature film. Mottola based a lot of the storyline on his own personal experiences at the real Adventureland in Farmingdale, N.Y.

For Mottola, “Adventureland” is an intriguing step for the up-and-coming writer/director. The film is far from perfect, and isn’t particularly memorable – but it is a refreshing indie feature.

The film proves quite personal, which, unlike the often sophomoric and often awkward “Superbad,” makes the film more enjoyable. “Adventureland” has a very clichéd story – James falls head over heels in love with Em, they get together, and then break up, and then get back together again. All the pieces are very familiar, but it’s Mottola’s flair for building his characters as realistic, flawed characters that make them endearing.

The character of James is a very well-written – the post-college graduate who’s finally learning about the so-called “real world.” He’s the sensitive type – always listening to The Velvet Underground’s “Pale Blue Eyes” on repeat, and even throughout college, he kept his virginity in check. His inexperience in life dismisses characteristic idealism and when he finally achieves coming-of-age, his realizations are genuinely heartwarming. He wishes he had all of life’s answers, but doesn’t – and his experiences at something as socially degrading as Adventureland help him find that he’s not as great as he had always thought. His suburban daydream is thrown away, like one of the many half-eaten Adventureland corn dogs.

In the role of James, Eisenberg is excellent. While his performance in “The Squid and the Whale” was a terrific lead debut, like James, he is finally maturing as an actor. His naïveté displayed in “Adventureland” is sensational, and Eisenberg is quietly joining the ranks of a new underground of twentysomething indie actors, and has a lot more potential for future films.

The supporting cast is also superb. Stewart, who has already achieved Hollywood status with last year’s hit “Twilight,” does an excellent job in portraying Em’s personal struggles. Also impressive is Reynolds, who, after being typecast in the past few years (he’s often played the same character since “Van Wilder”), shows a vulnerable side.

Although the film is unlike “Superbad,” it still packs, albeit more subtly, a comic punch due to its skilled comic relief. Hader and Wiig, two current cast members of “Saturday Night Live,” are hilarious in their roles as the eccentric carnival owners. However, the most memorable performance in the film comes from Starr, who portrays the dorky Joel as a layered, tragic character. In addition to the depth of the character, Starr utilizes terrific comic timing, often stealing many scenes with his amusing one-liners. In one particular scene, Joel is operating a game in which guests can attempt to throw a baseball to knock off hats worn by rotating mannequins. The game is fixed, of course, and when the guest fails – even after a direct shot – he protests that Joel is cheating to which the sardonic operator retorts, “Yet his chapeau remains!”

While the film does have its comic moments, it really works best in the coming-of-age genre. Unfortunately, “Adventureland” has been heavily advertised as a teen sex romp in the vein of its more conventionally comedic predecessor. As for Mottola, his next project is the much anticipated reteaming of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (of “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” fame) in the comedy tentatively titled “Paul.” Whether you’re looking for a few laughs, or just a nice little nostalgic trip – a trip to “Adventureland” is certainly worth the price of admission. Just don’t eat the corn dogs.

Grade: A-

Originally published in Framingham State College’s The Gatepost

R.I.P. Dom Deluise

I would not be happy if Mel Brooks was next…

R.I.P. Bea Arthur 1922-2009

Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a *bullshit* artist!
Comicus: *Grumble*…
Dole Office Clerk: Did you bullshit last week?
Comicus: No.
Dole Office Clerk: Did you *try* to bullshit last week?
Comicus: Yes!

Review: Watchmen

How important is screen fidelity, when it comes to adapting serious fiction into an epic, special effects blockbuster? When it comes to bringing forth the critically acclaimed graphic novel, Alan Moore’s triumphant “Watchmen,” there are two major components that would be essential in a cinematic conversion – the book’s visual style, which is the fundamental reason why “Watchmen” is so accessible and popular, and universal politics and ideas that made it one of Time magazine’s 100 greatest novels of all time.

In the late 1980s, as the book was being prepped for the first time for the screen, the project’s director Terry Gilliam, (“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”), deemed “Watchmen” as “unfilmable.”

That notion lingered for a long time, and Hollywood bosses put the book back on their shelves and set their sights on other projects. In 2007, Zack Snyder, a director whose only credit was the critically panned “Dawn of the Dead” remake, released his momentous visual stunner “300,” which was a huge success. Hollywood took notice and gave him the reins.

Two years later, the much anticipated cinematic adaptation of “Watchmen” has exploded onto the screen in all its big budget, promotional glory (this critic can’t lie – he’s purchased a few of the toys). Does “Watchmen” live up to the book? Well, it does … and it doesn’t.

The story concerns your not-so-average superheroes – unassuming, everyday people who are tired of the lack of justice in a world full of crime in an alternative 1985. The crew, known as the Watchmen, consists of the nerdy yet determined Nite Owl II a.k.a. Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson), the bigoted brute the Comedian a.k.a. Eddie Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), the calculating Ozymandias a.k.a. Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), the vigilante sociopath Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), the sexy Silk Spectre II a.k.a. Laurie Juspeczyk (Malin Akerman) and the only real superhuman member, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) – a radioactive accident turned deified American hero.

The days of costumed heroes have been brought to an end by legislation, but after the Comedian is brutally murdered, an investigation into the killing is initiated by Rorschach. He reunites the forgotten heroes, and as they set out to prevent their own destruction, they discover a deeper and far more diabolical plot. Their pursuit is to watch over humanity, but who is watching the Watchmen?

Visually, the film bears striking similarity to the book. Snyder has a talent for visualizing the book perfectly, rendering its memorable images exquisitely to the screen. Unfortunately, Snyder mixed both the book’s style with his unmistakable, over-the-top style of excess. Fight scenes last too long, the use of slow-motion is laughable and female roles are yet again demeaning. Snyder’s got talent for the action genre – he was just too overzealous a director for “Watchmen.” One can feel his fear of the subject matter throughout the whole movie. Instead of approaching the material with risky, experimental filmmaking, Snyder goes straight for the throat and just tries too hard to make it too faithful.

The biggest problem and an example of his misguided enthusiasm is the film’s uninspiring and clichéd soundtrack (except in one instance). Snyder uses great songs like Hendrix’s cover of “All Along the Watchtower” and Simon & Garfunkel’s anthem “The Sounds of Silence” in unnecessary, inexpressive ways. They’re meaninglessly used, and one can’t help but feel that Snyder was artistically blinded by excitement when his budget allowed their inclusion.

Another huge problem is the general “dumbing down” of certain aspects of the graphic novel for audiences who haven’t read the source material. In the book, the fear of nuclear annihilation is a lot less obvious and expressed through subtext. In the film, an entire subplot involving Richard Nixon (played like a caricature by Robert Wisden) is introduced and removes essential storylines from the book.

However, the film does have some treasures hidden among its flaws. The first 20 minutes are exemplary – there is a montage of the back story (originally offered between each chapter in the novel), set to the tune of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a Changin’.” Images of Ozymandias at Studio 54 and a recreation of the Kennedy assassination involving the Comedian (a notion not included in the comic, but a risk well taken) are both bold and exciting.

Haley, who has blossomed as one of the best modern character actors after his Oscar-nominated comeback role in the vicious “Little Children,” is the star of this film. Rorschach is a sick and twisted individual, and while David Hayter and Alex Tse’s script cuts out a lot of his back story and the dialogue that made Rorschach the best character in the book, Haley brings life to the masked maniac.

Also impressive is Morgan, whose Comedian is as brash and hotheaded as he was in the comic. Goode delivers the perfect Ozymandias, and Crudup does well enough as the detached blue giant. One can applaud Snyder’s knack for perfect casting – except in one case. Akerman is bland and annoying, although her character was slightly underwritten in the adaptation process (Silk Spectre II is a much stronger woman in the book).

While this isn’t the worst comic book film, it is far from the best. Snyder did the best he could, but this film really feels unfinished – an ambitious first draft. Moviegoers won’t be bored, but they may not get the “Watchmen” film they deserve. After a strong opening, the film dropped in the box office after its second and third week of release. Will anybody be watching the “Watchmen?” Maybe on DVD.

Grade: B-

Originally published in Framingham State College’s The Gatepost

Oscar Preview & Predictions

Another awards season is coming to an end. This year’s ceremony of the 81st Annual Academy Awards, the official culmination of the awards season, will undoubtedly be like nothing we’ve seen at the Oscars in a long time. In a bid to garner ratings, producers of the show have enlisted Wolverine himself – Hugh Jackman – as this year’s emcee, a choice that proves this telecast will be a song-and-dance extravaganza, since Jackman’s already had practice by hosting the Tony Awards three times.

As for the nominated films, this year’s show proves to be a home to both critically and commercially popular films. In recent years the Oscars haven’t been kind to the average movie-going public, favoring smaller independent features. This year, hit films like “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The Dark Knight” are up for the most awards (thirteen, ten and eight nominations, respectively), and their popularity will hopefully result in higher ratings.

As in past years, an honorary award will be handed out. Comedy legend Jerry Lewis will be receiving the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award for both his career as a movie star in films such as “The Nutty Professor” and for his charitable work for the fight against muscular dystrophy through his annual Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon since 1966. It will be an unforgettably moving moment when he takes the stage.

Ready or not, the Oscars are here. After an astounding year of cinema, the best of the best are truly being honored. Whether you loved certain nominated flicks or hated them, this is not a night to be missed by any movie fan. No matter who wins, these are all films that deserve to be seen.

Best Actor: The showdown in this category will be between Sean Penn’s transformative performance in “Milk” as gay rights hero Harvey Milk and Mickey Rourke’s heart-wrenching achievement as the washed-up Randy “The Ram” Robinson in “The Wrestler.” Both are at their best, but Penn deserves the statue in terms of professional showmanship and honest conviction. While Rourke was superb in “The Wrestler” and will likely win the hearts of the Academy, the part just seems a little too tailor-made for the actor. As for the other nominees, it would be wonderful to see a surprise win for either Richard Jenkins for his work as a lonely professor in “The Visitor” or for Frank Langella’s Tricky Dick in “Frost/Nixon.” As for Brad Pitt’s ridiculously overrated, CGI-enhanced role in “Benjamin Button,” a win in this category would definitely be considered a huge upset.

Who Should Win: Sean Penn, “Milk”
Who Will Win: Mickey Rourke, “The Wrestler”
Snubbed: Michael Sheen, “Frost/Nixon”

Best Actress: Probably the hardest category in which to discern a
winner, one can’t help but wish this award could go to all the deserving nominees. Meryl Streep delivered, yet again, an astounding performance as the villainous Sister Aloysius in “Doubt” – earning her fifteenth nomination. However, Kate Winslet is the favored actress to win for her role as a Nazi sympathizer in “The Reader.” This performance hasn’t been considered her best to date (that would be “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”), but after six nominations, the consensus is that she’s due for her first win. The other formidable competitors include Angelina Jolie as the forlorn mother in “Changeling,” Melissa Leo as an immigrant smuggler in the indie “Frozen River” and Anne Hathaway in her visionary role as a recovering addict re-connecting with her family in “Rachel Getting Married.” Hathaway hasn’t won any major awards up until the Oscars, and regrettably, it doesn’t look like it’s her year.

Who Should Win: Anne Hathaway, “Rachel Getting Married”
Who Will Win: Kate Winslet, “The Reader”
Snubbed: Sally Hawkins, “Happy-Go-Lucky”

Best Supporting Actor: Last July, a little film called “The Dark Knight” was released. The role of Batman’s nemesis, the Joker, was re-imagined wondrously by the late Heath Ledger. He took a role that had always been, well, something of a joke, and turned it into an icon. Ledger truly deserves this. As for the other “just glad to be nominated” Oscar guests, it’s somewhat unfortunate that they may not get the attention deserved in what turned out to be a great year for the character actor. Josh Brolin turned bigotry into tragedy in “Milk,” Philip Seymour Hoffman was brilliant as the disputed priest in “Doubt,” Michael Shannon played crazy in “Revolutionary Road” and Robert Downey Jr. played “a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude” in “Tropic Thunder” (that’s right, Ben Stiller directed an actor to an Oscar-nominated performance). Unfortunately for these supporting stars, come Sunday, they’ll be applauding for their fallen opponent.

Who Should Win: Heath Ledger, “The Dark Knight”
Who Will Win: Heath Ledger, “The Dark Knight”
Snubbed: Bill Irwin, “Rachel Getting Married”

Best Supporting Actress: Will it be Penelope Cruz, for her sassy wit in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” her second nomination after 2006’s Spanish dramedy “Volver,” or will Marisa Tomei’s stripper with a heart of gold in “The Wrestler” take home the gold? This race is tight, but it looks like Cruz will be victorious after what has been an awards season sweep for the sexy actress. Other nominees include Taraji P. Henson for her blasé mammy archetype in “Benjamin Button” and the women of “Doubt” – Viola Davis for her harrowing 15-minute role as the piteous mother and the always impressive Amy Adams as the naïve nun who takes on her tyrannical mother superior. Adams is actually the strongest performer of the group, and a win in this category would be a fantastic surprise.

Who Should Win: Amy Adams, “Doubt”
Who Will Win: Penelope Cruz, “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
Snubbed: Samantha Morton, “Synecdoche, New York”

Best Director: After years of redefining genres with films like “28 Days Later,” “Millions” and “Sunshine,” the Academy has finally discovered the staggering talent of Danny Boyle. With “Slumdog Millionaire,” Boyle magically intertwined his unmistakable expressive style with the grandiosity of Bollywood – a feat that proves he’s one of our most gifted filmmakers. He’s definitely the favorite to win. The other optimistic directors seeking victory include David Fincher for the epic yet flawed “Benjamin Button,” Stephen Daldrey for his Holocaust drama “The Reader,” Ron Howard for the fight of the century in “Frost/Nixon” and Gus Van Sant for his extraordinary story of tolerance, “Milk.” There doesn’t seem to be any real competition for Boyle, who is finally getting some overdue credit.

Who Should Win: Danny Boyle, “Slumdog Millionaire”
Who Will Win: Danny Boyle, “Slumdog Millionaire”
Snubbed: Darren Aronofsky, “The Wrestler”

Best Picture: An amazing year for film and five nominated pictures will vie for that much-coveted award. While the most consummate and thoroughly inspirational film is “Milk,” it hasn’t gained a lot of momentum for a surprise win. “The Reader” will be the big winner in the best actress category and “Benjamin Button” will triumph in the make-up and visual effects categories, but neither of them have a shot at best picture. All eyes will be on 2008’s “little movie that could,” the crowd-pleasing and critically triumphant “Slumdog Millionaire.” Danny Boyle’s incredible story is both artistically dazzling and timely. Considering our national malaise during this economic crisis, the classic underdog tale is exactly the best picture we need.

Who Should Win: “Milk”
Who Will Win: “Slumdog Millionaire”
Snubbed: “WALL•E”

The 81st Annual Academy Awards airs Feb. 22 at 8:00 p.m. on ABC.

Originally published in Framingham State College’s The Gatepost

Review: My Bloody Valentine 3-D

Ever wonder how many different ways a person can be killed by a pick-axe? This year’s first horror remake (to be, like most years, followed by many other rubbish horror remakes) has that simple answer. That’s really the only meaning you may get out of “My Bloody Valentine 3-D.” Otherwise, you’re in for a lot of mindlessly hilarious fun – even if you’re the stuffiest of moviegoers.

In what seems to be a rehashed “Scooby Doo” plot, “My Bloody Valentine 3-D” tells of the ludicrously named town of Harmony, which happens to be the murder capital of the world. The people who survive the attacks by the stab-happy miner Harry Warden (Richard John Walters) are just stupid enough never to move away. Warden was the lone survivor of a mine accident and after years in a coma he wakes up and kills everybody in the town, with the exception of some dimwitted teenagers named Tom (Jensen Ackles), Axel (Kerr Smith) and Sarah (Jaime King). They’re saved by the sheriff, and Warden’s supposedly buried in the mine and all seems just fine.

Ten years later, the dopey teens have grown up into fully matured morons and are still wasting space in Harmony. Everyone’s seemingly happy until the murders start again. No one knows for sure if Harry has actually returned or if it’s just some copycat trying to re-terrorize the community. Has Harry risen from the dead? Or has someone else put on the mask and picked up the axe for a killing spree? One thing is for sure: this movie is really stupid.

But luckily for its audience – it’s stupid on purpose! “My Blood Valentine 3-D” is a throwback to the slasher films of the ‘70s and ‘80s, in that it hardly takes itself seriously. The script is trash, the acting is hammy, the music is clichéd, and the 3-D is as far from dazzling as you can get but that’s what makes it so enjoyable. The filmmakers never intended to make something new, or highbrow – like “Halloween” or “The Exorcist.” This is more in the vein of cult hits like “A Nightmare on Elm Street” or “Child’s Play” in terms of novelty over intellectual innovation. What the movie doesn’t deliver in substance, it makes up for in bloody, “gore-ific” fun. The best way to enjoy the movie is with a group. This is one movie you are allowed to talk during as it is perfect “Mystery Science Theater 3000”-esque fodder.

The major problem with this movie experience is that it really only works once. The price of the ticket is higher than the usual pocket-emptying charge at the multiplex – a whopping $12.75 for one admission. The movie doesn’t have the lasting power of a novelty horror flick like “A Nightmare on Elm Street” or “Child’s Play.” For one thing, it lacks neither an iconic nor terrifying villain (Harry Warden is no Freddy Krueger and will never hold a candle to Michael Myers).

After seeing this, it won’t be the first on your list to buy when it is released on DVD as it will be way too expensive and won’t come with the theater experience. This is a fun movie, but really only has the power for one (or maybe two, depending on how heavy your wallet is) theatrical viewings. Look for this one a few years down the line in the cheap Walmart $3.99 bin.

Overall, “My Bloody Valentine 3-D” is certainly fun, but will never be known as a great horror flick (or even a good movie). If you have an appetite for blood, and love to see how many ways a person can be mutilated – this is the movie for you. We’ll definitely be seeing a sequel (the end of the movie shamelessly suggests this) so you may not want to miss out if you’re a true horror fanatic. Call your friends, don’t forget to ask for the 3-D glasses and have a bloody good time!

Grade: C+

Originally published in Framingham State College’s The Gatepost