People tend to underestimate the silent era of cinema. They think that the directorial style is “primitive”, the acting is poor and the atmosphere is boring. I know not everyone thinks with such a narrow viewpoint, but far too many people do. Films such as “The Lost World” prove the notion entirely wrong, with amazing technical achievements (considering the era) and an engaging story which continues to be rehashed and copied over seventy-five years later.

Professor Challenger (Wallace Beery) claims that deep within darkest Brazil dwell real live dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasts. The public ridicules this idea, save for one reporter, Edward Malone (Lloyd Hughes), who wishes to journey to Brazil with Challenger to prove himself to the woman he loves. Along for the ride are Sir John Roxton (Lewis Stone), a notorious big game hunter, Summerlee (Arthur Hoyt), a stuck-up scientist, and Paula White (Bessie Love), the daughter of an explorer who disappeared while searching for the same lost world. They eventually find their destination atop a perilous plateau and quickly become the prey of blood-thirsty dinosaurs and a terrifying Ape-Man.

Based on the story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, this tale should seem rather familiar to you; it’s been told over and over again in various incarnations on a regular basis for decades. Personally, I’ve always considered the original “King Kong” to be a remake of “the Lost World”, since the similarities are pretty much undeniable. The climax of the film even includes a brontosaurus being taken back to London to be put on display, only to break free and run amok through the city. If I had to choose between “the Lost World” and “King Kong”, my preference would definitely veer in the direction of “the Lost World”. “King Kong” may have had that sappy love story (that wasn’t even really done justice until Peter Jackson’s remake), but “the Lost World” had twice as many dinosaurs. And I love me some dinosaurs.

Given the limitations of special effects back in 1925, I can’t imagine how they figured they were going to pull this film off when it went into production. Technical Director Willis H. O’Brien manages to do the impossible, bringing the rampaging giants of the Jurassic to life and working out methods which allowed them to interact with the human characters. O’Brien’s stop-motion effects are impressive, though rough when compared to his later accomplishments (such as “Mighty Joe Young” and the aforementioned “King Kong”), they’re none-the-less impressive. While movement can be a little choppy, the level of detail is rather astonishing. The dinosaurs’ chests heave in and out as they breath, they have detailed eyes which can move in all directions and even blink, they curl their lips and sneer, they drool, the works. While a far cry from the special effects we enjoy today, this was really something back in 1925.

Although the story is a little on the thin side, I think it has this sort of “modern mythology” aspect to it, considering how often it has been retold and re-imagined over the years. The characters carry the film quite nicely and even if they’re not the deepest I’ve ever seen, there’s enough to them to make each one stand out. Our hero, Malone, has a love triangle going on with Gladys, Paula and Roxton. He goes to the lost world to prove himself to Gladys only to fall for Paula, whom Roxton is in love with. Challenger looks and acts like an absolute madman, which makes his interactions with the prudish Summerlee rather amusing. There’s also the Ape-Man, probably the film’s main villain, who menaces them throughout their entire stay in the lost world. The make-up used on him is quite effective and he looks somewhat unsettling in close-ups. They paired him with a goofy chimpanzee sidekick for some reason, though.

“The Lost World” has been the fodder for many a late-night spook-show on public access television, which is of course where I first encountered it. Still, I think it deserves better than to be double-billed with the likes of “Plan Nine from Outer Space”. Image Entertainment recently released a magnificently restored DVD which takes the once hour-long abridged version of the film and combines it with scenes from multiple cuts to rein it in at an impressive 93 minutes in length. The presentation is glorious and truly worthy of such a classic and influential piece of film history. I’d highly recommend picking it up to anyone interested in dinosaurs, King Kong, silent films or just classic cinema in general.

Grade: A

I remember picking up the graphic novel of Steve Niles’ “30 Days of Night” several years ago and thinking “Man, this would have been a lot better as a movie”. Indeed, the idea seemed to be to turn it into a movie as soon as it was published, only it’s taken until now to finally have that intention realized. And just as I suspected, the film version of “30 Days of Night” is mostly superior to its comic book counterpart, but does that make it any good? Well, to be frank, the comic wasn’t all that good to begin with. A decent idea and some freaky art, but I found the whole thing to be wholly overrated. While I enjoyed the film to an extent, and found it to be a better interpretation of the story than the source material, the end result is none-the-less mediocre.

Point Barrow, Alaska, the northern most point of the United States, undergoes thirty days of darkness each year. As soon as the sun sets, the town finds itself under siege by a horde of hungry vampires, ready for a month-long feast. Eben (Josh Hartnett), the town sheriff, and his wife, Stella (Melissa George), are left to gather as many survivors as possible and try to ride out the thirty day massacre without being found. Not so easy, as Point Barrow is a small town and the vampires don’t want to leave any trace once they’re finished.

I’ve only ever read the first graphic novel for “30 Days of Night”, and while I thought it was pretty good, it didn’t impress me enough to indulge in the myriad of sequels that came afterward. My primary issue with the comic was that it was far too condensed. It was supposed to be a tale of survival, but that aspect of the story was played down in favor of an action-packed opening and climax. The movie adaptation, thankfully, focuses heavily on the small group of townspeople struggling to keep hidden from the bloodthirsty ghouls out to get them.

The movie also did away with a few aspects of the comic that I thought were kind of, well, stupid and/or lazy. The subplot about the voodoo cult in New Orleans trying to get video evidence of the vampires is nowhere to be found, which is fine by me, as it felt completely tacked on and unnecessary in the comic. Also, the generic evil vampire overlord who shows up at the end to berate the leader is also left out, which didn’t bug me at all, considering that was a fairly mundane deus ex machina, anyway.

So ultimately, these changes coupled with the less-condensed story-telling are what left me with a more satisfied feeling after watching the movie than when I read the comic. But source material aside, what was the movie really like? Fairly boring, I have to confess. The shaky-cam effects were terrible, making a lot of the more violent action sequences a chore to follow, if you could follow them at all. Only about three or four members of the band of survivors have anything even remotely resembling character depth or personality, leaving the rest as little more than cows for the slaughter. A horror movie standard, I know, but they still didn’t do anything for me.

“30 Days of Night” is more an action flick than a horror movie and isn’t particularly scary. Most of the scares revolve around loud noises and the usual “jump” gags we’re all so tired of. I’ll admit that the vampires themselves are more entertaining than the prissy goth crybabies a lot of vampire flicks make them out to be, and are nicely gruesome, but still no great shakes. The artwork in the comic was very surreal which is what lead to its unsettling quality. These vampires are just guys with really sharp teeth that like to shriek way too much (the shrieking, by the way, gets annoying very quickly).

“30 Days of Night” is a good adaptation of the comic and actually an improvement, but it really only takes a mediocre graphic novel and makes it slightly less mediocre. I didn’t hate the movie, but it seemed more like something I’d rent or wait until it hit TV.

Grade: C+

The day has finally dawned! Transformers DVD is finally out & I will be first in line at the local movie store, what about you?

No need to wait, here are the hottest DVD releases for Tuesday October 17, 2007:

AC/DC: Plug Me In
Believers
The Hoax
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers
The Invisible
Jingle All The Way
Masters of Horror: The Damned Thing
Medium: The Third Season
A Mighty Heart
Planet Terror
The Reaping
Return to House on Haunted Hill
RoboCop
Squidbillies: Volume 1
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip: The Complete Series
That ’70s Show: Season Seven
Transformers

Well, we’ve already seen & more than likely hated the U.S. Southland Tales movie poster. Now take a look at the UK one-sheet poster that was recently revealed.

What do ya think? If you’re wondering why Seann William Scott is pictured twice, don’t worry, it’s not a mistake as Scott is actually taking on a couple of roles for the film.

All in all, though, this poster doesn’t make we want to rush out & go see this flick, what about you?

Well, we’ve already seen & more than likely hated the U.S. Southland Tales movie poster. Now take a look at the UK one-sheet poster that was recently revealed.

What do ya think? If you’re wondering why Seann William Scott is pictured twice, don’t worry, it’s not a mistake as Scott is actually taking on a couple of roles for the film.

All in all, though, this poster doesn’t make we want to rush out & go see this flick, what about you?

Would I recommend that you go see “Michael Clayton” in the theaters? Honestly, no. Do I think this is by any means a bad movie? Most certainly not. In fact, I thought it was fantastic. However, suspense thrillers of this nature, which take a while to gather steam and are visually very “simple”, can be enjoyed just as much at home as on the big screen. “Star Wars”, “Jurassic Park”, those are movies best experienced in the theater due to their excessive special effects. “Michael Clayton”, a movie which relies on its story and characters, doesn’t really need to be seen on a two story-tall silver screen. Never-the-less, I’d recommend anybody who happens to be a fan of these sorts of thrillers check it out whatever way is most convenient, as you’ll definitely enjoy it.

Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a “fixer” for a major Manhattan law firm. He is called in to deal with a bizarre case once his close friend, Arthur (Tom Wilkinson), apparently goes nuts after spending years defending his company’s supposedly lethal pesticide. This means a lot to Michael, because if he can’t rein Arthur in then his entire career is in jeopardy. However, the further Michael digs into Arthur’s sudden psychotic grudge against the very company he was employed at, the more he begins to question how “crazy” Arthur really is. This puts both Michael and Arthur at risk, as the company will go to deadly lengths to keep certain information from ruining them.

When the film began, I wasn’t entirely sure what the plot was going to be. Nearly an hour into “Michael Clayton”, I still wasn’t positive where everything was going. However, as the film progressed, the plot began to defragment itself, making everything from the first hour which seemed entirely pointless reveal its true value. “Michael Clayton” is the sort of movie which requires your absolute attention. If you devote anything less, you’ll be scratching your head through the entire run. It also requires a good deal of patience, as the plot develops very slowly and steadily with several threads running at the same time. As I sat there in the theater, I kept thinking to myself “this is the kind of movie my grandparents would like”. By the time the credits were rolling, I felt twenty years more mature.

Being very story and character driven, “Michael Clayton” is left to rely greatly on its cast. George Clooney contributes an excellent performance as the title character, though it’s not one I think most people would single out as being stellar. Michael Clayton is supposed to be very stoic and sullen considering everything going on in his life and Clooney nails that without question. However, given the rather low key nature of the character, it doesn’t immediately pop out to you as a magnificent performance. Tom Wilkinson’s Arthur is either funny or intriguing, depending on the audience you’re with. The scene where Arthur loses his mind at a meeting as well as his various lunatic ravings drew some laughter from the audience which I don’t always think was the intention. Still, it’s a very lively performance and not once did I ever roll my eyes or drop out of the experience.

“Michael Clayton” is what I guess you could call an “old fashioned” kind of movie and one that’s only going to appeal to those who can maintain their attention span for more than an hour (there were some teenagers a few rows behind me who got bored seventy minutes in and began making giggling cell phone calls). Still, if you enjoyed flicks such as “Breach” or “Fracture” then there’s no doubt you’ll get a kick out of this. It has an especially satisfying conclusion, too.

Grade: B+

The trailers gave me a pretty uneven impression of this movie. It looked fairly mundane, the usual “one brother is good, the other is evil, and now what has brought them so close together threatens to tear them apart” Hollywood tripe I’ve seen a thousand times over. The sight of Eva Mendes in a starring role didn’t draw me any closer, as I honestly believe that next to Kirsten Dundst, Eva Mendes is the worst actress of our times. Well, “We Own the Night” turned out to be one of those rare surprises, I can say with relief. I wouldn’t rank it among the best pictures I’d seen this year, but it certainly wasn’t the grueling experience I was dreading.

Bobby Green (Joaquin Phoenix) runs a Brooklyn nightclub in 1980’s New York. He enjoys drugs, booze, all that good stuff. His brother, Joseph (Marky Mark Wahlberg), is a by-the-books cop, out to bust a major Russian narcotics ring which has connections to Bobby’s nightclub. So, naturally, the two don’t get along. That all changes when, thanks to Bobby’s apathy, Joseph takes a bullet from a Russian hitman who happens to be one of Bobby’s pals. Bobby has a change of heart and vows to help his police officer father (Robert Duvall) take down the Russian mob, even if it means putting his own life in jeopardy.

Yeah, I know, the summary sounds hokey and derivative as all hell, but trust me, Director/Writer James Gray manages to take a color-by-numbers Hollywood plot and work it out into something that commands your full attention. The whole “two brothers not seeing eye to eye” bit doesn’t absorb as much of the plot as the trailers would have you believe. Joseph is injured fairly early in the story and the plot of the movie revolves almost entirely around Bobby and his sudden revelation that what he’s doing with his life is wrong. Eva Mendes, Bobby’s girlfriend, actually gets more screentime than Marky Mark (not that that’s a good thing, mind you).

James Gray goes the extra mile to try and keep things as “real” as possible. There are scarcely any over-the-top cinematography or epic action shots; its all very closed in and personal. While this might sound kind of drab, it lends credit to the realism of the story. The “boxed in” feel puts the audience in the shoes of the lead characters, allowing you to realize how mortal they all are. Probably the best use of this technique was during the car chase sequence in the last quarter of the film. Seldom does the camera leave the confines of Bobby’s car as he’s being chased by the enemy down a busy highway in pouring rain. The excellent use of muffled sound makes you feel like your right there in the car, about to collide head-on with a truck. That was certainly the part of the movie which stuck with me the most.

While the movie is more about one man having his eyes opened than two brothers fighting with each other, “We Own the Night” does fall into some Hollywood ruts. It can be somewhat predictable and there are some rather poor leaps in logic. An elderly Russian mobster trusts Bobby like a son, but never does a background check to see he has a father and brother in the Brooklyn PD? I’ve already harped on Eva Mendes, but her performance actually manages to make all the other actors in the room look as bad as she is. Eva Mendes is fine if you want window dressing, just don’t let the lady talk. I was also a bit let down by the ending. Well, there were things I liked and hated about it. Gray takes his “realistic approach” with how the villain is dispatched, but he simultaneously mixes in some eye-rolling Hollywood schlock that had all the patrons in my theater groaning “don’t go in there, you idiot!”

“We Own the Night” was a 90% good movie with complaints being few and far between. It’s probably best enjoyed as a rental, but definitely a flick worth checking out in your spare time.

Grade: B

With my favorite holiday Halloween just around the corner, I thought I’d open a forum on what are the best spooky holiday flicks.

So, what do you think? What is your favorite Halloween movie? Are you a classic fan & go with the ever-entertaining Michael Meyers? Or are you more of a Jason or Freddy fan.

You tell me.

With my favorite holiday Halloween just around the corner, I thought I’d open a forum on what are the best spooky holiday flicks.

So, what do you think? What is your favorite Halloween movie? Are you a classic fan & go with the ever-entertaining Michael Meyers? Or are you more of a Jason or Freddy fan.

You tell me.

Warner Bros president of production Jeff Robinov is a complete idiot. (Can you guess how I feel about this?) This fine gentlemen has decided (allegedly, now) that since Jodie Foster’s The Brave One, Emma Robert’s Nancy Drew, Hilary Swank’s The Reaping, and Nicole Kidman’s The Invasion fared poorly at the box office that Warner Bros. will no longer make films with women in the lead roles.

Update: Warner Bros has denied this, but I still feel it needs to be talked about…just to make sure we’re hitting home with how ridiculous this idea is.

Let’s address why those films might not have done so well:

The Brave One – With Jodie Foster coming off hits like Panic Room and Flight Plan, how could this one not be a hit? Oh yeah – maybe because no one has been going to Jodie Foster movies since Contact. On top of that, Jodie Foster’s core audience is largely female (can’t imagine why), and it might be – JUST MAYBE – that they don’t want to see a revenge picture. Maybe.

Nancy Drew – Let’s see…did you see an ad for this thing? I didn’t. I had no idea a Nancy Drew movie even came out until I walked into the theater and it was playing. Obviously, I’m not the target audience, but Nancy Drew was released in the summer – I assume as counter programming – and that doesn’t always work. Why wasn’t this film released at a less crowded time? If it had been, a few people might have seen it.

Reaper and Invasion – I lump these two movies together because THEY WERE TERRIBLE! It’s not that the movies has female characters in them…it’s that they were bad movies.

NOTE TO WARNER BROS – STOP MAKING CRAP and PEOPLE WILL GO TO THE THEATER TO WATCH YOUR MOVIES!

That is all.

via Slashfilm