The Blair Witch Project (1999) & American Psycho (2000) [Jay's Movie Talk Takeover Special]

For Episode 38 of Movie Talk, It's the last of the Takeover episodes and taking over this episode is yours truly!

Listen as I talk about my recent appreciation of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and looking forward to the new sequel.

I also discuss about how much I love AMERICAN PSYCHO and how it basically made Christian Bale a star.

Thank you for listening

Outro Song

Hip To Be Square
by
Huey Lewis and The News

Special Shout Out too BloodGuts&BluRay of the Coretemparts network
follow them on Twitter
@bloodgutsbluray
and follow their podcast on Itunes and Stitcher
at Blood, Guts and Blu Ray

be sure to follow

@Jaymovietalk on twitter

Me
@Fredthewolf

Check out Midnight Confessions Podcast
www.podomatic.com/podcasts/reverendphantom

Check Out Thats Not Current Website
www.thatsnotcurrent.com/

Jason Bourne (2016)

Directed By: Paul Greengrass

Starring: Matt Damon, Tommy Lee Jones, Julia Stiles, Alicia Vikander, Vincent Cassel

Genre - Action/Adventure/Suspense/Thriller

Running Time - 123 Minutes

Plot (from IMDB): The most dangerous former operative of the CIA (Matt Damon) is drawn out of hiding to uncover hidden truths about his past.

Review: After the boring and uninspired THE BOURNE LEGACY, JASON BOURNE is a welcome addition to the BOURNE franchise that started in 2002. Matt Damon returns to the role he made famous, stepping into his brooding, investigative shoes as if he had never left 9 years ago. Damon’s age is also an asset, as he’s now wiser, more disgruntled with his life, and no longer confused about his spy past - but rather why he really joined Treadstone all those years ago. The reason for Bourne’s return could have been really dumb and seen as nothing but a cash grab [which JASON BOURNE really is, to be honest]. But the mystery that Bourne is trying to figure out this time around is a much more personal and quite clever, considering I had no idea what reason they would give to have Bourne come out of hiding to begin with. The twists and turns are pretty good, and you’re kept invested in this sequel.

Paul Greengrass returning is also a good thing, as his visual style connects this perfectly to SUPREMACY and ULTIMATUM. We get that shaky-cam style we’re used to by this point, with Greengrass really highlighting some cool action sequences in Greece, and especially the entire final act in Las Vegas. Even the quieter moments feel important again, even though the script could have been better at times.

While JASON BOURNE is definitely a good action movie and better than LEGACY, it’s not quite as good as the first three films. JASON BOURNE is pretty much the same film we’ve seen in the other Matt Damon films. A contact of Bourne gets killed in the beginning. There’s a CIA boss who always seems evil and wants Bourne eliminated to keep secrets hidden. One of the CIA people want Bourne alive to help him get the answers he needs. There’s a hired assassin after Bourne. Every huge action sequence is in a crowded place, usually involving cars and jumping off roofs. Plus we get flashbacks giving us reason to why this film exists. All these elements work for the most part, but it does feel tired by this point. Considering ULTIMATUM was released 9 years ago, you’d think things would get changed up a bit.

And while the film has great actors in it, their roles are very underwritten. Tommy Lee Jones plays a great villain, but I wasn’t really sure what he real deal was. He was more involved in a sub-plot involving some internet security scandal, which was refreshing but should have been more fleshed out and felt more important. Alicia Vikander has an even lesser role to portray, just mainly staring at screens and computers until the final act, where she really begins to flesh out her character. By that point though, it feels a bit late. Julia Stiles returns and fares a bit better as Nikki, showing us what she has been up to and why she’s still protecting Bourne. And Vincent Cassel has a stereotypical vengeance sub-plot to work with, but does it amazingly well and comes off an as actual threat to Jason Bourne. In fact, out of all the assets in this franchise, Cassel was by far the best and most interesting one. I wish there was more interaction between him and Damon though.

Plus, I felt the ending was a bit flat for some reason. I wish the ambiguity had remained to set up some intrigue for a future sequel, but everything was given away - making you wonder why Jason Bourne would ever return to deal with these CIA people.

The Final Howl: JASON BOURNE was a good, but not great installment in the BOURNE franchise. Matt Damon is great as usual as the title character, with the other actors doing their best with underwritten characters. Paul Greengrass brings his shaky-cam visual style back, which really give the same kenetic energy to the action sequences - especially the sequences involving Greece and Las Vegas. I just wish that after nine years, the usual beats we’d expect from this franchise were turned upside-down or something. Instead, we get the same evil CIA agents, an assassin wanting to kill Bourne, and flashbacks that just happen to pop up to present us with a mystery to give reason for this film’s existence. It’s an entertaining summer movie for sure, but JASON BOURNE feels “been there, done that” after all these years. 

SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

DIRECTED BY
William Castle

STARRING
Vincent Price - Frederick Loren
Carol Ohmart - Annabelle Loren
Carolyn Craig - Nora Manning
Elisha Cook Jr. - Watson Pritchard
Richard Long - Lance Schroeder
Alan Marshal - Dr. David Trent
Julie Mitchum - Ruth Bridges

Genre - Horror/Suspense/Ghosts/Haunted House

Running Time - 74 Minutes


As I had mentioned in an earlier review for 1959's THE TINGLER, director William Castle knew how to promote his movies by presenting gimmicks that only worked for their respective films. THE TINGLER, which is about a creature that grows on one's spine and will kill its owner if they can't scream, used a gimmick called Percept-O - where certain theater chairs had devices that released shock waves onto those audience members whenever the Tingler creature would appear. Because of these crazy gimmicks, Castle would have huge successes on his hands. It also helped his films are usually good.

Prior to THE TINGLER's release was the release of the iconic HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. Most people are probably more familiar with the 1999 remake [which I like quite a bit] and its 2007 average sequel. But the 1959 version of HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is considered one of the best haunted house films ever filmed, and deemed influential in the horror genre. It was the first collaboration between Castle and star Vincent Price. It also had an interesting take on the 3D gimmick called Emergo! - which involved a fake skeleton "coming out" of the screen during the point of the film [at the end] where the skeleton emerges from an acid pit inside the house's cellar. It would hover over the audiences' heads, attempting to scare them. Sounds like a fun concept, and it actually helped make HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL a box office success.

Unfortunately, Emergo doesn't happen as you watch HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL at home. But unlike THE TINGLER, the gimmick probably doesn't enhance the viewing experience all that much. It's fine, since HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL still manages to be a good time after all these years, even if it isn't a perfect film.

PLOT
Millionaire Frederick Loren (Vincent Price) has invited five strangers to join him and his wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart) at a haunted house party in celebrate Annabelle's birthday. The incentive for these guests - $10,000 if they stay the night inside this House on Haunted Hill...and survive. The guests include a jet pilot named Lance Schroeder (Richard Long), innocent Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig), drunk journalist Ruth Bridges (Julie Mitchum), and doctor David Trent (Alan Marshal). Trent, in particular, wants to test his theories on what trauma and fear can do on the human mind if the rumors about the haunted house are true. Also in attendance is Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook, Jr.), who has spent a night in the house before and is afraid to be inside again due to the ghosts that haunt it.

As the guests roam the house, they encounter some strange phenomena that can't be explained or believed. They also have to deal with the tension between Frederick and Annabelle, who despise each other and seem to be implying each other's deaths. Nora, afraid for her life, decides to leave. But the doors and windows close by themselves, trapping all the guests inside. If this just a game? Or is this house really haunted?

REVIEW

HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is considered by many to be William Castle's crowning achievement as a filmmaker, although I personally prefer THE TINGLER over this one. It's not a perfect film and is definitely cheesy and schlocky. But it's also a lot of fun, with cool moments that will make you jump or laugh, never boring you at all. Even without the Emergo! gimmick, the film succeeds for the most part.

HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL was inspired by Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House - which would also later inspire 1963's THE HAUNTING and 1973's THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE. What could play out as a modern reality competition program on television, the guests intend to stay the night to win $10,000 [although each person has their own agenda as well] but have to face obstacles such as ghosts, guns, bloody ceilings, a bickering married couple, and an animated skeleton who rises from an acid pit in the cellar. It's like being in one of those funhouses at a local carnival, expecting weird things to pop up and disorient you at every turn. I won't really discuss the narrative any more than that, since I would be spoiling things if I got too much in depth with this film. So for those two people who haven't watched the original HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, you're welcome. I will say that the 1999 remake does play with the concept of the $10,000 survival prize a bit more, but the original is still a fun ride.

What really makes the film work are the characters. Nora, in modern horror terms, would be considered the film's Final Girl. She's innocent, naive, but sweet and good hearted as well. She also seems to be the main target of the ghosts in the house, probably due to her supposed pure nature. She's also the smartest one in the group, as she realizes she's way over her head and wants to leave the house, not caring about the money. Unfortunately, the house closes itself so she's locked in. But at least she has common sense. Lance, the jet pilot, is pretty much Nora's best friend in the house. He obviously has a crush on her and is the only one who is willing to believe her stories about seeing ghosts. He also catches the eye of Annabelle, which causes a tiny bit of tension between him and Frederick - although it's never really explored to add some needed drama between the characters. Ruth is a columnist who enjoys drinking, which aids her skepticism over the entire situation. She also has a puddle of blood dripping on her wherever she goes, which takes a while to gain a reaction out of her. Dr. David Trent is there to study the behavior of the other guests in terms of how they embrace fear. He also has a very personal relationship with one of the other characters that no one else is aware of, which leads to the fun conclusion of the movie. And Watson is pretty much the guy who's already been through the terror, warning the others about what's about to happen. He also likes to drink, as it helps him cope with the memories of what happened to him.

The best characters, however, are the Lorens. Frederick and Annabelle waste no time showing their lack of affection towards each other, having fantastic banter [the dialogue is really great for these two] and always implying murdering each other eventually. It seems Frederick sees Annabelle as a golddigging wife, while Annabelle sees Frederick as an easy means to a rich life once he's dead. Their relationship is the catalyst to the events that occur in HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. The reason the guests are because of the couple due to Annabelle's birthday party. And Frederick seems to want everyone there, almost as if he plans on killing Annabelle and needs alibis. The entire relationship is twisted fun.

I do think the ending of the film is pretty lame though. The special effect moment is cool. The twist, while interesting, doesn't really work as well as it should since it comes out of nowhere. And the very end itself is just weak, in my opinion. It's as if the film didn't know how to end and relied too heavily on the gimmick. Everything before the final moments are effective, and the ending doesn't really match up to the level of anything before it.

The film is also very dialogue heavy. So those expecting a lot of ghosts and murder will probably want to look elsewhere. But when the spookier moments do appear, they're pretty cool. Ghosts pop out of nowhere, looking more hilarious than scary. The scene where a ghost tries to wrap Nora with rope from outside the window is pretty neat. The skeleton is cool looking for its time, and probably the most memorable "effect" of HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. We also get a hanging, a bloody ceiling, people boiling in acid, and a decapitated head in a suitcase. So while there's a lot of talking, there are also those moments where you'll either be creeped out, or just enjoy while laughing at them.

The direction by William Castle is very good here. It's a black and white film [at least the version I watched - there is a colored version out there], so the film has to rely on a lot of shadows and light. HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL succeeds in doing that visually, as the way certain scenes and objects are lit play a trick on your eyes at times. The pacing is pretty good and never feels long [it's only 74 minutes long]. There are cool "boo" scares and pretty creepy moments. There's also a ton of atmosphere that we don't really get in horror these days, which is what Castle always excelled at. The Von Dexter score also aids in the mood and tone of the film. I really enjoyed the visual presentation.

The acting is good as well. Vincent Price, without a doubt, is the best actor in the film as Frederick Loren. It's one of Price's most famous roles of his awesome career, as his voice mesmerizes you every time he speaks. He also maintains his massive charisma and makes Frederick somewhat sympathetic, even when you know the character's intentions are less than pure with his creepy mannerisms and delivery. Just as good is Carol Ohmart as Annabelle Loren. Her banter with Price is fantastic, as you can really taste the dislike the two actors have for each other through their characters. Ohmart is also very sexy and it's easy to see why the men in the film would do what she says. Carolyn Craig is good as Nora. She doesn't do much but scream and look cute, but she does both well. Richard Long is good as Lance, playing off Craig really well. Elisha Cook Jr. was kind of annoying as Watson, but I can understand the performance since he was playing a specific character. The other actors are fine as well. A good cast overall.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE USING THE $10,000 I WON FOR THERAPY

- Whoever stays inside the haunted house all night will be given $10,000 if they survive. I never got any money when I stayed over Neverland Ranch! What the hell? That pain was so not worth it...

- Frederick, although throwing his wife Annabelle a birthday party, hates her guts. Sounds like this marriage is just fine.

- Nora found a decapitated head in her suitcase. I guess Al Snow stayed there during a prior visit.

- Annabelle supposedly hung herself, which shocked the other guests. Ted Stryker must have told her about his drinking problem again...

- A skeleton rose from the acid pit inside the cellar. Um...Fatality?

THE FINAL HOWL

While not William Castle's best film, in my opinion, HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is still a fun, imaginative movie that still deserves love after 53 years. The acting, especially by Vincent Price and Carol Ohmart, is very good. The direction has a lot of atmosphere. The story is simple, yet it works and creates memorable moments. The ending is pretty bland and more could be done with the "win $10,000 for surviving the house all night" concept. But overall, it's an entertaining B-movie that's a pleasure to watch.



SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

[SEQUEL SEPTEMBER] Phantasm II (1988)

DIRECTED BY
Don Coscarelli

STARRING
James LeGros - Mike Pearson
Reggie Bannister - Reggie
Paula Irvine - Elizabeth Reynolds
Angus Scrimm - The Tall Man
Samantha Phillips - Alchemy
Kenneth Tigar - Father Meyers

Genre - Horror/Science Fiction/Suspense/Supernatural

Running Time - 97 Minutes


PLOT
Picking up from 1979's PHANTASM, Reggie (Reggie Bannister) saves Mike (using some archived footage of Michael A. Baldwin) from the grasp of The Tall Man (Angus Scrimm). The two escape through a window before their house explodes, realizing that The Tall Man has escaped as well. This is told to us by a young woman named Liz (Paula Irvine), who seems to share a psychic connection with Mike and knows of the Tall Man's terror.

Seven years pass, and Mike (James LeGros) is released from the Morningside Psychiatric Clinic when he tells his psychiatrist that he has finally accepted that his experiences with The Tall Man were all in his head. Once he's out, Mike continues his search for The Tall Man by visiting graves and digging up plots to see if there are bodies in them or not. Reggie interrupts Mike, trying to convince him that The Tall Man never existed. Mike lets Reggie take him home, but once there, their house explodes with Reggie's family inside.

Reggie, now upset that The Tall Man has taken more people away from him, decides to fully help Mike stop him once and for all. They drive through several towns, noticing chaos around them as no people are anywhere living in them. The Tall Man is now moving his evil through the United States, while luring Mike into his web at the same time. Reggie and Mike encounter Liz and a hitchhiker named Alchemy (Samantha Phillips) - who all battle The Tall Man in a massive showdown involving four-barrel guns and flying spheres.



REVIEW


HITS

- The bigger budget and direction. There's a lot of history behind the production of PHANTASM II, a sequel that was nine years in the making at the time. Universal Studios had bought the rights to PHANTASM, which they relinquished when this sequel wasn't a big box office success. Don Coscarelli, now with a big studio backing him up, was offered more money to create his vision in a grander scope - although PHANTASM II was one of Universal's least budgeted horror films at the time. I'll get into the bad stuff about Universal's part in PHANTASM II soon, but at least we got to see better special effects in at least one of these installments.

The gore is pretty cool in this film. This one comes mainly through our favorite friends in these PHANTASM films - the flying spheres. Not only do we get silver spheres, but we get this nasty golden one that seems more sentient than the silver ones. And when they come to play, they do quite a lot of damage. We get a rat being lazered to death. We get the usual sphere drill through the head, which gushes out blood through the other side - either in red or mustard yellow. We also get a great bit where the sphere actually enters someone's body, travels inside, and tries to escape through the person's mouth. Pretty nasty stuff, but cool as well. We also get a scene with a monster coming out of someone's back, speaking like The Tall Man. And did I mention we get like three explosions in this film? Talk about overkill, but the 80s loved their explosions. I thought the make up and special effects were nice here.

As for Don Coscarelli's direction, he handles it well. PHANTASM has always been Coscarelli's pride and joy, even when he was directing more mainstream fare like 1982's BEASTMASTER. The film moves at a quick pace, even during the slower moments in the first hour. I love the locations, especially towards the end with the ghost towns and that creepy funeral parlor. The tension and suspense is good, due to nice editing and framing. I thought the action scenes were handled well. And there was definitely a nod to Sam Raimi here, as many shots were done EVIL DEAD style. I particularly loved the POV shots of the flying spheres, with their heat vision. Very stylish film here that has nods to the original film, but adds newer stuff in. I dug the visuals here.

- The acting. I always dug the acting in the PHANTASM films for the most part, but PHANTASM II works with a small cast and the actors really carry the film well. James LeGros replaces Michael A. Baldwin in the Mike role [which I'll get into shortly] for his first and final appearance in a PHANTASM film. Now known as an indie film darling, I thought LeGros was pretty good as Mike. He may be a bit muscular and good looking to be an adult Mike, but he handles the role well - especially during the final act. I kind of wish Michael A. Baldwin had stayed in the role, only for continuity sakes though. Reggie Bannister is awesome as sidekick Reggie. Here is where the character becomes the hero who kicks major ass and thinks with his small head when it comes to beautiful women. There's a bit of Bruce "Ash" Campbell in the performance, which I didn't mind at all. Bannister plays Reggie a bit tongue-in-check, making the role fun to watch. Paula Irvine was cool as Liz. I bought her act, although her arc with Mike was a hit-and-miss. Samantha Phillips looked hot as Alchemy. She doesn't get to do much other than that, but once she shows her boobs, it didn't really matter. And Angus Scrimm is always awesome as The Tall Man. The man is just a presence, not needing to say much to intimidate people. Cool cast here.

- The shift in tone. The first PHANTASM is a classic piece of horror cinema for many reasons. The biggest one is probably due to how its story was told. Unlike many other horror films at the time, which told its story in a straight forward sort of way, PHANTASM has a dream-like, surreal quality about it that raises more questions than answers. This should piss a lot of people off, but many fans [yours truly included] enjoy trying to unravel the mystery of what PHANTASM is trying to tell both visually and narrative wise. It sets itself apart from other horror films, which is why it gets a ton of respect in the community.

Due to Universal being behind PHANTASM II, the studio wanted Coscarelli to change how the narrative was told for the sequel. Wanting to compete with other horror films that were in the horror market at the time, Universal nixed the whole dream-like deal and wanted the story to make more sense for the mainstream audience. So besides the final moments of PHANTASM II, the rest of the story follows a predictable, familiar template in terms of its narrative. Some fans hated this, as the sequel doesn't attempt to make the narrative mysterious and pretty much tells a linear story that anyone can easily follow and understand.

But I don't really mind it too much. Because of the change, PHANTASM II becomes its own film and doesn't knock off the first film - which is the opposite of what other horror sequels had done at the time. It's a lot more tongue-in-cheek at times, and definitely more action oriented than suspenseful and mysterious like the first film. The first hour is your standard road movie, where characters and locations are established. The last half hour is your action-horror stuff that pretty much resembles the final moments of the first PHANTASM.

Sure, the film is not as interesting or captivating as the first film. But I don't mind the change and the story is told well. Mike and Reggie are still interesting characters, especially Reggie. Mike's psychic connection to The Tall Man and Liz are interesting developments that don't really get answered, which is fine. Reggie is heroic and a bit of a fun horn dog, which gives him a ton of personality. I do feel the Mike and Liz love story is a bit forced, but it's never in your face enough to really bug you. And The Tall Man is great. He's hardly in the film, but he's always casting a shadow over everything. Plus his intentions to move through the country to accomplish his goal is a great development that would become grander in later sequels.

Not everything works, obviously, but when it does, it does it well. PHANTASM II has great moments and introduces story elements that later sequels would focus on. It does everything that a sequel needs to do. And while Coscarelli may have been forced by Universal to turn PHANTASM II into a more mainstream and lighter in tone sequel, he never lets that hinder his storytelling process and takes advantage of the change. This sequel may be less involved than the first film, but it definitely has more fun.


MISSES
- Studio interference. So like I mentioned earlier, Universal Studios bought the rights to make PHANTASM II and made sure to add their two cents in how Coscarelli's story would continue under a major studio. The change in the way the story was told was a major one, but luckily it worked out for the most part. Still, PHANTASM is known for its strange and surreal narratives, which makes PHANTASM II stick out like a sore thumb within the franchise. I think the more linear story is great, but it's not as timeless as the story in the first film, because the film film allows the audience to interpret what they witnessed for themselves. You don't really get that in PHANTASM II, although the story is still well told.

The other major issue came with the casting of the lead actors in PHANTASM II. Don Coscarelli, loyal to his cast & crew and to his continuity, wanted to keep both Michael A. Baldwin and Reggie Bannister on board. However, Universal wanted to replace both actors with more well-known actors so the sequel would sell better for the then-MTV audience. Coscarelli and Universal butted heads over this, to the point that Universal allowed both actors to audition for the roles. REALLY?? Then when they did audition, Universal said that Coscarelli could only pick one to star in the film. Feeling having Reggie Bannister would be more beneficial to the film and that the studio would rather replace the lead role anyway, Coscarelli let Baldwin go. He was eventually replaced by LeGros.

I understand the reasoning for the change from a business standpoint, but I feel this ruined continuity and LeGros, while decent in the role, didn't have the same kind of chemistry with Bannister that Baldwin did in the original. Plus, the addition of LeGros didn't really help the film's box office at all, causing Universal to dump PHANTASM after this - which thankfully allowed Coscarelli to work independently and bring Baldwin back to continue his story for two more sequels. This casting decision would ruin all continuity. Flashbacks to PHANTASM II would have to be reshot just to put Baldwin back in for certain moments. It just made things more complicated when they didn't need to be.

I wish studios would stop interfering into productions more than have to. If it wasn't broke the first time, don't try to fix it. That's all I'm saying.

- That bit with Father Meyers and Liz's family. I understand that Liz's character needed her own arc to explain her reasoning in the film's narrative. But I felt the scene with her grandfather's funeral that involved her grandmother and Father Meyers just ruined the flow and stalled the film a bit for me. It's not bad, but after spending so much time with Mike and Reggie prior to this scene, it feels a bit jarring. Also, I felt the characters other than Liz were just there to be fodder for The Tall Man, while Father Meyers was there to add a good vs. ultimate evil aspect to the film that was already there with Mike and Reggie vs. The Tall Man. And if this scene was meant to explore Liz's character, it didn't really work because I still didn't know much about her besides Liz loving her family and feeling scared of The Tall Man. Like I said, the scene isn't terribly written. But it feels out of place with the rest of the film at that point.

- Alchemy. Besides for the ending and to feed Reggie's libido, I have no idea why this character even exists. Yes, she was hot. Yes, she shows us her nice boobs. Yes, Samantha Phillips wasn't a bad actress. But on a narrative level, she could have been left out and not much besides the ending would have been changed. She was a pleasant distraction visually, but had no place in the story for me.


THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE KEEPING THE TALL MAN'S BALLS AWAY FROM MY FACE

- Mike dug up several graves, all with empty plots. Obviously The Undertaker needs room for the bodies of his next opponents at Wrestlemania.

- Mike believes a chainsaw will do more damage to The Tall Man than a shotgun, due to its close range. I guess we now know who wins in that PHANTASM vs. THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE movie.

- Mike and Reggie found a gagged Liz in the corner and in the spotlight. She must have been losing her religion...

- Liz's grandmother freaked out when she saw her dead husband in bed with her. Don't see why she was so scared. He's probably stiffer in all the right places, if you know what I mean...

- A priest was murdered by the flying sphere. I guess he ended up losing his religion too.

- One of The Tall Man's golden flying balls burrorwed inside of a man and then out. Usually the thing attached to the ball does the burrowing, but maybe The Tall Man does things differently in the bedroom.


THE FINAL HOWL

PHANTASM II isn't as good as the first film, but it's still a fun sequel. It has cool gore moments, energetic direction by Don Coscarelli, good acting, and a narrative that takes what was established in the first film and moves it along, rather than repeating what was done before. It does have some unnecessary characters, controversial casting that ruins continuity a bit, and moments in the narrative that ruin the flow a bit - most likely due to studio interference. But it's definitely watchable and a worthy companion piece to the first film.


SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

The Grey (2012)

DIRECTED BY
Joe Carnahan

STARRING
Liam Neeson - John Ottway
Frank Grillo - John Diaz
Dermot Mulroney - Talget
Dallas Roberts - Pete Hendrick
Joe Anderson - Todd Flannery
Nonso Anozie - Burke

Genre - Thriller/Drama/Survival

Running Time - 117 Minutes


PLOT
John Ottway (Liam Neeson) works at an Alaskan oil drilling facility as a guard in the tundra. This occupation involves long hours, dangerous work, and drinking away any semblence of their former lives away from the job. Ottway's job is to keep the men safe from hunting wolves with his trusty rifle.

One night, Ottway and the rest of the workers eagerly board a plane to Anchorage to get away from the job. Unfortunately some time after the plane takes off, there's some major turbulence and the plane crashes in the middle of nowhere in a snowy tundra. Ottway and those who have survived the crash decide to group together to find their way back to civilization, although blizzard-like conditions and a band of wolves stand in their way.

REVIEW

HITS

- The acting. The story and metaphorical themes of THE GREY wouldn't be as effective or powerful without a cast of strong actors to really drive it home to viewers. Liam Neeson, always a fantastic and intense actor, is the film's heart and soul as John Ottway. The film studio tried to market THE GREY as "TAKEN with wolves", which isn't really the case here. But while Neeson does handle action convincingly well here, it's the quieter moments that really elevates his portrayal of a lonely man who's coldness towards life in general matches the coldness of the tundra he fights so hard to survive in. He makes himself the alpha of his group [a theme I'll bring up later] and we learn the most about his character through Neeson's presence, charisma, and command of the material given to him. In a lot of ways, I felt Neeson was playing himself through the Ottway character - as both suffered tragedies in their personal lives within the last couple of years - letting Neeson let out all the anger, stress, and confusion through his acting. It made his performance that much more profound and captivating. I read Bradley Cooper was originally supposed to portray this role, but I honestly can't see it being half as good as Neeson's portrayal here. He makes THE GREY performance-wise.

The rest of the cast don't get as much material to chew on as Neeson does, but they all do a fantastic job in their respective roles. In particular, Frank Grillo [who was also solid in 2011's WARRIOR] is great as the antagonistic Diaz - who doesn't agree with Ottway's views on survival and prides on being a cynic until things get really bad. Just from the way he presents himself and behaves gives viewers a lot about his character. Delmot Mulroney is also good as Talget in a much quieter role. Everyone in the cast should be commended for their work here. I really believed their fear, frustration, and will to survive [as well as their will to give up when they knew their time was up]. Solid stuff.

- The direction and cinematography. Director Joe Carnahan and director of photography Masanobu Takayanagi should be applauded for the powerful and effective visuals for THE GREY. Carnahan, known for his work on THE A-TEAM, NARC, and SMOKIN' ACES, decides to pull back on the stylish and quick edits of his previous action works. Instead, he lets the actors tell the narrative while focusing on their struggle to survive in the freezing wilderness. It's quite nice and leads to many moving and effective moments. The use of flashbacks are effective. The cinematography of the snow, and then later the mountain and river setting are just beautiful and stunning. I also loved that the film had a subtle score, letting the natural sounds be the forefront. I also loved the grain to the film. It was an inspired choice to direct these actors outside subzero temperatures to capture the real feeling of freezing to death, as it makes THE GREY seem more real than it is. I felt the film was pretty suspenseful and touching at times. I thought Carnahan and Takayanagi did an awesome job.

- The special effects. Believe it or not, the special effects in THE GREY are the wolves themselves. While some of them were real animals, some of them were animatronics. There's CGI used on these wolves that gives them a certain glow that makes the animals look really surreal and creepy at times. I loved the shot of the group looking out into the darkness, with the yellow glow of wolf eyes staring back at them. Really chilling moment there. Of course, we get blood and some pieces of human body parts now and then that look natural. THE GREY doesn't rely on the special effects all that much, but it's effective when used.

- The story. While THE GREY doesn't have the greatest dialogue or the most original premise, the narrative is deeper than what the marketing leads one to suspect. THE GREY isn't really about these men trying to survive freezing conditions while guarding themselves against vicious wolves. Maybe that's what the ads led you to believe on the surface, but the screenplay is a lot deeper than that. In fact, THE GREY is a very thought provoking film with serious themes about life, death, and God. There are so many questions presented in THE GREY: What happens to us when we die? When do we know when, where, why, or how we die? Why is life so unfair to us? Why are we so afraid to admit that we fear death? Does God really exist, and if He does, why does He let his children suffer a tough life?

In fact, Mother Nature and the way it treats these characters represents life. Life is tough. Life is unpredictable. Life puts us down so we can get back up and pass whatever tests are being thrown at us. As much as the freezing weather and the plane crash puts these men in serious danger, they bond and learn about life through each other on a positive note. The wolves themselves are obviously a metaphor for death, as they appear out of nowhere to kill the characters one-by-one when they least expect it.

Speaking of the portrayal of the wolves, I know a lot of people complained about how they acted against their nature in THE GREY. A lot of groups were against this film for this reason, and for others as well. Wolves aren't normally vicious like THE GREY makes them out to be, as these animals only attack unless provoked. Since these species of wolves were just taken off the endangered species list recently, it hit a soft spot with many animal activists. But if people realized that the wolves represented the physical form for swift and sudden death, I think there would have been less opposition to the use of these beautiful animals. Real wolf meat was used for one scene though and I'm not really sure how I feel about that. These animals were at one time endangered, so there's a line that's dying to be crossed there. I can respect PETA and other animal groups being up in arms with THE GREY because I see where they're coming from. But it's not like the animal slaughter in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, which really disturbed me. We do see a wolf getting butchered, but it's a fake prop. But I guess it still hits close to home.

Honestly, I felt like THE GREY was like a dream or some semblence of the afterlife - as things happen in a dream-like way and characters are taken away from us in very tragic, and sometimes ironic ways. THE GREY is about these men who don't trust each other at first, but learn to become true friends when life hands them a terrible plate that eventually bands them together. It allows the characters to grow from men who are only worried about their own personal issues, to men who worry about the other and try to protect each other from wolves and from whatever Nature throws at them. I really appreciated the depth to the story, as the themes of THE GREY sunk in and left me thinking about the questions presented and what I would have done in their situation. We don't get many films like that these days, so it's nice to see one come along. Sure, it sacrifices certain story elements that needed to be there [I'll get to that], but at least THE GREY had a lot of substance that made me care about the plight of these characters. So kudos for that.


MISSES

- Lack of character development. Because of the depth of the themes presented in THE GREY, that leaves less time for the characters not named Ottway. While Diaz, Talget, and Hendrick get some characterization, it's not a whole lot because it's really Ottway's story over anyone else. This hurts the effectiveness of the deaths of some of the main characters because we can't necessarily attach ourselves to them emotionally. Before we really get to know some of the survivors, wolves pop out of nowhere and devour them. And when we're left to the last four survivors, we know more about them towards the end [including their first names - they were only referring to themselves by their surnames]. But Ottway is still the only major character who is given a backstory of some sort, while the other characters are given some but nowhere close. When you realize it's really one man's story about his struggle with life, death, Nature, and himself - you start to care more about this one man and start caring a bit less about the others because their struggle [while it's the same on the surface] doesn't feel as important to the story. This hurts the film a bit, but not too much to where THE GREY suffers. It's a somewhat necessary flaw: deep themes or deep characters - something was going to be sacrificed here, even though I'm sure both could have been done here.

- Misleading marketing. This is not a hit on the film itself, but I have to say that the studios were pretty deceiving in what they wanted to present to potential audiences. They make THE GREY seem like this action flick about a man stuck in a tundra while punching and beating up wolves who want to kill him. This couldn't have been further from the truth, as THE GREY is more of a drama with action-suspense elements added within. I still enjoyed this film when I watched it in theaters earlier this year [enjoyed it more the second viewing days ago], but I knew others who felt lied to and hated the film because of it. I think it's pretty unfair for that kind of hate, but I don't blame them for feeling duped. I think Liam Neeson will sell a film on its own. Trying to make it something it's not is only going to hurt matters rather than help them.


THE FINAL HOWL

Do you want existentialism in your artsy thrillers? Well then THE GREY is for you. Besides a bit lacking in some character development for some of the major characters, everything else about this film is solid. Brilliant performances, especially by Neeson and Grillo, stunning visuals and direction, great suspense, and thought-provoking drama highlight this film. Forget how THE GREY was marketed and go in with a clean slate. This film will make you think and it will make you feel. Nice to see there are mainstream films out there who still have intelligent, soul, and a lot of heart. One of the better films of 2012 so far.

SCORE

3.5 Howls Outta 4

Dead Calm (1989)

DIRECTED BY
Phillip Noyce

STARRING
Nicole Kidman - Rae Ingram
Sam Neill - John Ingram
Billy Zane - Hughie Warriner

Genre - Thriller/Psychological/Drama/Suspense

Running Time - 96 Minutes


I always find it interesting to watch A-list actors and actresses in their early roles pre-celebrity, especially if they starred in horror films. While there are a tiny few who embrace their horror genre past in someway after becoming tabloid fodder and award winning performers, most of them probably want to forget their earliest roles. Do you think Paul Rudd still puts HALLOWEEN: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS on his resume? Does Tom Hanks still care that HE KNOWS YOU'RE ALONE? I don't think George Clooney has plans on going to that RETURN TO HORROR HIGH reunion if they're advertising THE RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES. Once many actors feel they're above the genre, their past is most likely forgotten or they'll make sure it's erased in the minds of their audiences.

1989's Australian thriller, DEAD CALM, is particularly an interesting case, as this feature was A-list actress, Nicole Kidman's, first mainstream movie. This is before Keith Urban. This is before the botox. This is before the Academy Awards and the Golden Globes. This is even before Tom Cruise. DEAD CALM has a 22 year old, fresh faced, Kidman starring alongside already established actor, Sam Neill, and up-and-comer cult actor, Billy Zane. Re-watching DEAD CALM after many, many years, I wonder if Kidman still talks about this film, as this movie was the one that got her noticed and led to her current place in pop culture. I hope she does, because DEAD CALM is a very solid thriller with good performances by her and her co-stars. Let's see why DEAD CALM is still worth sailing on the ocean for...

PLOT
John Ingram (Sam Neill) returns home after serving in the Australian Navy. Unfortunately, it's not a great welcome home, as his wife Rae (Nicole Kidman) was in a car accident that tragically murdered their young son. As Rae is left injured and traumatized by her son's death, John decides to take Rae on their yacht in order to get away from the real world for a while.

After a month of sailing, they come across a sinking ship. From that ship, they see a young man, Hughie Warriner (Billy Zane), paddling towards them. Seemingly disturbed by events on that sinking ship, Hughie explains how he is the only survivor of an outbreak of botulism. John is very suspicious about Hughie's story, so he decides to check out the other ship. This leaves Rae alone with Hughie, who has been locked inside a bedroom.

John makes it to the sinking ship, realizing his suspicions were right as he finds the other occupants on the boat murdered. As John tries to make it back to Rae, he doesn't realize that Hughie has awakened and broken out of the bedroom. Threatening Rae, Hughie takes over the yacht and sails away from John's location so he doesn't find them. Believing that John won't be able to reach her in time, Rae takes matters into her own hands in order to survive Hughie's plans for her.

REVIEW
DEAD CALM is based on a 1963 novel by Charles Williams that was originally planned for a film adaptation as early as 1970 by Olson Welles. However due to financial issues and the death of Laurence Harvey, who was supposed to play the killer, the project was abandoned. That is until 1988, when Phillip Noyce decided to revive the project - making Nicole Kidman and, in a lesser extent, Billy Zane into future stars. Baring a slight resemblence to Roman Polanski's 1962's KNIFE IN THE WATER in terms of its premise [but done in a more psychological thriller form], DEAD CALM is one fans of the genre should watch for more than just curiosity on Kidman's debut role.

DEAD CALM gets criticized and overlooked a lot due to the fact that the film doesn't really have a major plotline other than its idea. It's pretty much what you read in the plot - a couple goes sailing to escape reality, a survivor of a sinking ship gets on the boat talking about his ordeal, the husband goes to the sinking trip realizing the survivor is a killer, who is stuck with his wife on their yacht. There's nothing really more in terms of character arcs or major subplots. Normally, this would be an issue because there's not much depth in terms of narrative. But for some reason, this "moment in time" story really works because there are other factors [such as direction and acting] that flesh out, what really is, a skeleton script.

The story works because the characters are all active participants, driving DEAD CALM from its standard beginning to its exciting end. John Ingram is given more than just a name and a title, as he was a member of the Australian Navy. He's a family man who grieves for his son, while helping his young wife deal with the trauma which she feels is her fault. That makes him likeable right away. What increases that feeling is that John is an intelligent, intuitive man who sees Hughie for who he is, but needs proof in order to confront him about it. When he's on the sinking ship, John never gives up on getting off of it in order to save his wife from a killer. In a way, DEAD CALM is really two stories in one, with John's being the small narrative. For much of the film, John is by himself trying to survive and give the ship power, which is in vain - all to rescue his wife.

John's wife, Rae, is definitely the main narrative as she struggles with surviving Hughie, who obviously has insane plans for her. She starts out as demure and quiet, playing the victim role when John can't protect her from this madman [who thinks he's on a luxury cruise and has delusions of how he sees his relationship with Rae]. But as she soon realizes that John may never come back to her [even though she never gives up on him], she begins to seduce Hughie by giving him what he wants from her, as if she's just as interested in him as he is in her. Many question why Rae let Hughie have sex with her, with thoughts of Stockholm Syndrome being brought up. But Rae just used her sexuality, Hughie's weakness, to gain an upper hand on him. This changes her from victim to a smart, resourceful young woman who will do anything to survive for herself and for her husband, John. This makes her realistic and sympathetic. DEAD CALM doesn't represent the seas, but rather John and Rae's focus on each other - needing each other to remain balanced and centered amongst the storm of losing their son and their struggle with Hughie.

As for Hughie, he's clearly a delusional psychopath. He's murdered a ship full of people. He relishes on tormenting Rae in order to have control over her and make her see things his way. But he's so a charming, good looking man who looks like anyone else, other than the fact that he acts a bit odd. He's a realistic villain that you could encounter anywhere, whether on land or sea. That makes him scarier than most cinema bad guys.

DEAD CALM's biggest accomplishment is the film's tension. It's everywhere in this movie. There's tension between John and Rae over the death of their son. There's tension between John and Rae when it comes to surviving their respective ordeals to reunite. There's sexual tension between Rae and Hughie. It's thick and visible, as the film builds it up more and more each passing minute. This is done through Phillip Noyce's direction and the way scenes are framed and composed, as well as edited. This is also done by the acting, as each person is devoted to their roles as they create chemistry with each other and make their characters believable. While DEAD CALM is thin on a narrative level, it totally makes up for it in mood and atmosphere. You feel the suspense coming through every frame, keeping your glued to the film from beginning to end.

Phillip Noyce does a great job behind the director's chair besides the tension, mood, and atmosphere. As I already mentioned, the framing and composition is great. The editing is solid. Scenes where John tries to survive sinking while Rae and Hughie playing a cat-and-mouse game with each other to one-up the other are very suspenseful. The picture looks beautiful. The location on the sea makes the film work stronger than it probably should. It's just a really nice looking film done by a man who knows what he's doing behind a camera. He compensated a thin story with strong visuals - that's a good director.

The acting, in particular, is fantastic in DEAD CALM. Nicole Kidman would become a stronger actress as she racked up films in her career. But she still does a fine job as Rae. She looks great before whatever she did to her face in later years, as well as gives a very credible performance from victim to resourceful woman who will do anything to survive. DEAD CALM is still one of my favorite Kidman performances, even though I'm not a big fan of hers to be honest. Billy Zane is probably the best actor as Hughie. He's so good at playing an unhinged psychopath, that I was convinced he really was one. I think this may be his strongest performance that I've seen him in. Surprised he didn't have a more profile career out of this, even though I'm sure he isn't complaining about his current cult one. Sam Neill also does a very good job as John. He's pretty much by himself for much of the film, but Neill does a convincing job as a man who'll do anything to survive to rescue his wife. His scenes were very suspenseful. Just a great cast.

Do I have any issues with DEAD CALM? I kind of wish John and Rae dealt with the death of their son more, sure. I think it would have strengthened their bond before Hughie threatens to destroy it. It doesn't really hurt the narrative, but I think it should have been treated more of a bigger deal than it was.

The ending, however, irks me more. Is it a terrible conclusion? No. But compared to the rest of the film, it just comes across as silly, implausible, and completely cliche. DEAD CALM plays it so smart, relying on tense moments to reel the viewer in, that having a "cinema ending" where the killer has to get in his "one last scare" takes away from it. The film doesn't really need it, but I'm sure a lot of audiences loved it though.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE LISTENING TO "THE LION SLEEPS TONIGHT" ON MY HIJACKED YACHT

- Rae wanted to take more than the needed sedatives to get over the trauma of losing her child. Whenever I need to be sedated, I just watch a recent Nicole Kidman film...with my EYES WIDE SHUT.

- Hughie claimed the passengers on his boat died of food poisoning. Well watching BLOODRAYNE is a bit hard to swallow and digest.

- Hughie's boat was filled with dead bodies. Man, that must have been quite the DEMON KNIGHT!

- Hughie told Rae that her face fascinated him. I agree. How much botox does it take to make anyone's face turn into wax?

- Hughie was a lot faster than Rae. She may believe in BATMAN FOREVER, but she can't out-quick THE PHANTOM.

- Hughie definitely wanted some of Rae. A lot of men have wanted to get inside her RABBIT HOLE.

- Billy Zane should stay away from boats. See also: TITANIC.

THE FINAL HOWL
While not perfect, DEAD CALM is still a great psychological thriller that will keep you engaged. A great trio of performances and wonderful direction highlight a tense and suspenseful show. Sure, the narrative could have been deeper and the ending is tacky. But DEAD CALM is still worth watching and even buying. I wish this Nicole Kidman had stayed around. Damn you, Tom Cruise!


SCORE
3.5 Howls Outta 4

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)

DIRECTED BY
F. Gary Gray

STARRING
Jamie Foxx - Nick Rice
Gerard Butler - Clyde Shelton
Bruce McGill - Jonas Cantrell
Colm Meaney - Detective Dunnigan
Leslie Bibb - Sarah Lowell
Regina Hall - Kelly Rice
Viola Davis - Mayor
Christian Stolte - Clarence Darby
Josh Stewart - Rupert Ames

Genre - Thriller/Suspense

Running Time - 108 Minutes


PLOT
A Philadelphia engineer named Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) horrifically watches two men, Clarence Darby (Christian Stolte) and Rupert Ames (Josh Stewart), break into his home and murder both his wife and daughter. Darby and Ames are eventually arrested. However, the district attorney, Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), makes an interesting deal that allows Darby to go free after a short sentence if he rats out Ames part in the crime. Clyde is pissed off about this turn of events, especially since Darby was the one who committed the murders.

Ten years later, Darby is free while Ames is gearing towards his execution via lethal injection. With Nick present, he watches in horror as something goes seriously wrong with the execution, as Ames dies in agony due to a tampering with the chemicals. Believing Darby is behind it, the authorities go after him. But Darby is tipped off by someone, allowing him to get away. This someone is Clyde in disguise, wanting revenge on Darby by kidnapping him and paralyzing him from the neck down with some sort of chemical. Clyde proceeds to chop Darby into pieces to complete the act. Clyde then lets himself get arrested for his crimes.

Now a prisoner, Clyde continues his revenge on those who let Darby get out of his true sentence. Using Nick as a puppet, Clyde tells him that unless he receives certain favors, traps that he had set around the city will come into play and cause some major harm. Apparently, Clyde is playing murderous games with Nick and his legal team from behind prison bars, trying to prove that he doesn't have to be present in order for all of them to be killed by his hands.


REVIEW

HITS
- Clyde Shelton. The character of Clyde Shelton is just awesome from beginning to end, due to his characterization by screenwriter, Kurt Wimmer. The character has such an interesting arc and so many twists and turns, that you can't help but enjoy him, his motives, and his actions. Clyde is a character made for professional wrestling. He's the likeable, sympathetic good guy who's family was killed in front of his eyes for no justified reason. When he decides to take matters into his own hands and gets revenge on those who couldn't right the wrong, we root for him and want him to succeed. When we begin to learn that Clyde is not really the man we believe him to be from the start, we feel manipulated and start to dislike him a bit. But then, when Clyde starts managing to get the best of Nick and his legal team by killing people behind bars, we start to see him as cool. The guy is intelligent. The guy is cunning. The guy is backing up what he says without a bit of hesitation. How can we not respect someone like that, even if what they're doing is wrong? He suddenly becomes oddly likeable again. Clyde is written so simple, yet has so many complex layers that he's the most fleshed out character in LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. No one else comes close. This proves to be a problem during the final act, due to how it plays out. But other than that, Clyde is a great character to watch.

- The acting. Gerard Butler's work in LAW ABIDING CITIZEN is great. What could have been a one-note villain, Butler turns into a character with great depth and sympathy. He plays on every emotional cue needed for the role - grief, anger, regret, satisfaction, insanity - it's all there. His exchanges with the other actors grab you the instant he opens his mouth. He pushes people's buttons, he fucks with their heads, and you're convinced by Butler due to his confidence in the role. It's such a different role than what you'd usually expect from him, but he takes it for all its worth and milks the hell out of it. Butler could have played Clyde as a stereotype of what we would expect a villain in a film like this would be like. But he grounds him and keeps him in reality, even through the crazy moments. Butler is the star of this film.

The other actors do their parts mainly well. Jamie Foxx is okay as Nick. I'll get into his character later, but Foxx played the cocky, slightly dirty lawyer pretty well. I do think he was out shined by Butler in every exchange they had, but Foxx wasn't bad. I do think anyone could have played this role though without much difference. But it was credible enough. Leslie Bibb was quite good as Nick's protege, who has a bit of regret in helping Nick at times. She plays Sarah with class, acting quite believably as Nick's conscience. Regina Hall was also very good as Nick's wife. Nice to see her in a dramatic role instead of those SCARY MOVIE films. Viola Davis gives a powerful performance as the Mayor, while Annie Corley chews the scenery as a power-hungry judge. Always nice to see Colm Meaney as well in anything. Nice cast who took the script seriously and played along with the best of their abilities. I bought most of what they presented on screen.

- The direction. F. Gary Gray does a very good job keeping LAW ABIDING CITIZEN visually interesting. The film looks great, picture wise. The editing is solid. The pace is fantastic, as the film never lets up right from the beginning. There's a decent amount of tension and suspense throughout the film. I even thought Gray brought a bit of style to this thriller as well. The film is an entertaining ride, even though some of it tends to be a bit implausible in terms of narrative and story structure. But Gray tries to make those moments fun to watch as well, so I can't knock the direction at all.

- The first two acts. LAW ABIDING CITIZEN is obviously inspired by DEATH WISH, with the main character's family getting killed in front of him, which obviously causes him to deal justice in his own hands. However, Kurt Wimmer wants to take that idea and make it bigger and add more mystery to it. The fact that Wimmer makes Clyde into a sympathetic villain is an interesting challenge, as I'm sure some people will have trouble rooting for the guy once he starts becoming more maniacal [not me, I liked him more as Clyde started to turn devious in his tactics]. But the set up, I thought, was actually pretty cool. It starts out as DEATH WISH, turns into a mini-SAW [when Clyde gets revenge on Darby], and then starts going into a psuedo-SILENCE OF THE LAMBS mode where Clyde is this ultra-intelligent mastermind who has all the cards and will use them to get what he wants. He curses out judges for believing in him, he kills cell mates to prove a point, and does other nasty things to show Nick and his team that he's the one really in charge. Instead of a "whodunit?" type of mystery, we ask "how does he do it?" instead. And while I'll get to that answer in the MISSES section, at least we're never bored and it's a fun ride getting to the reveal. It's just too bad the film starts to unravel once it gears towards the finale, but it's very entertaining getting there.


MISSES

- The final act. I know cinema, a lot of the time, expects viewers to stretch their suspension of disbelief when it comes to certain plot devices. But LAW ABIDING CITIZEN takes it to another level. As much as Clyde is made to be this genius mastermind, the reveal of how he does it seems a bit too far-fetched. This type of plot device belongs in a comic book adaptation, not in a smart, exciting thriller. I kept wondering how NO ONE knew what Clyde was up to, making everyone else in the film look like dumbasses. If the film wasn't trying to be as realistic as possible, it would be totally fine. But it just comes across cartoony, even if I did think it was pretty cool.

As for the climax and resolution, I thought it was just very lame. You set up Clyde so much that the way he gets caught and handled with makes everything before that for naught. I understand the mystery should be solved and the villain needs to be stopped, but the whole thing went against Clyde's character that we were led to believe before this moment arrived. For such an intelligent character, he's made out to be a total putz. I think, while still a bit entertaining, the ending fell apart.

- Who are we supposed to root for? This may have been my biggest issue with LAW ABIDING CITIZEN - which character am I supposed to sympathize with? At the start, we root for Clyde since his family is the one who gets killed and Nick, wanting to meet some sort of quota to raise his reputation as a lawyer, doesn't give the criminals the justice they probably deserved. But when Clyde starts doing evil things out of revenge and anger, Nick is portrayed as the hero who is out to stop Clyde before he hurts anyone else. It gets really confusing because both men are severely flawed, yet Clyde is so charming and intelligent that you can't help but respect the guy and think he's cool. Nick, on the other hand, ignores his family for his job and is willing to play dirty to make sure he has a clean rep when it comes to his cases. Yet, this cocky bastard is supposed to be the protagonist? I didn't really understand why the narrative needed to do a double turn like this. Even so, it doesn't work! Clyde, even though he's made to be the villain, just has so much depth that makes him charmingly likeable. Nick doesn't give off the same vibe, as his character is a bit too smug to root for. I respect the attempt, but it really doesn't work well here.


THE FINAL HOWL
LAW ABIDING CITIZEN was one of my favorite films of 2009, and I still enjoy it now. Even with its character and narrative flaws, it still manages to be a good and exciting thriller. Instead of trying to tell a standard revenge story, the twists and turns showed that there were some creative and even thought provoking ideas here. Definitely one of Gerard Butler's best roles and I'm hoping he makes more movies like this one, instead of those lame rom-coms he's been choosing. Just a run ride for much of the runtime that I'm sure many viewers will enjoy.


SCORE
3 Howls Outta 4