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+

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

1980 is when the Slasher subgenre really began to hit off, which is why the Slasher-esque horror films of the late 70’s intrigue me so much. Since they predate the standard Slasher conventions established by films like “Friday the 13th”, but still retain familiar elements of the subgenre, they’re much less predictable or clichéd and typically have a few ounces more story to them than most Slasher flicks from the 80’s. “Tourist Trap” is one of those late 70’s Slasher flicks I enjoy so much. It keeps from falling into the by-the-numbers rut of its successors, but still features enough aspects of that horror subgenre I love so much.

While traveling along the back roads of Midwestern America, a group of teenagers stop by a dilapidated rest stop and wax museum located far off the beaten track when their car breaks down (you can tell where this is going). The museum is run by the friendly salt-of-the-Earth Mr. Slausen (Chuck Conners), who takes a liking to the group fairly quickly. He offers to help them fix their car and get going, but only on the condition that they stay away from the creepy mansion across the way, where Slausen’s crazy brother Davy, the creator of the numerous wax mannequins, supposedly dwells. Well, kids are stupid and they decide to investigate the mansion anyway. They then find themselves the prey of a creepy man in a wax mask with telekinetic powers and the ability to bring his wax mannequins to life.

“Tourist Trap” is a much more surreal experience than I was expecting, and all the better for it. I was pretty much anticipating a movie about killer wax dummies stalking stupid teenagers, but to my surprise, the wax mannequins actually play a rather small role. The spotlight is cast firmly on Mr. Slausen, Davy and the one good egg of the teenage group, Molly (Jocelyn Jones). The Slasher in question, Davy, defies the archetype of most Slashers and has a lot of personality, talking constantly and divulging information about his relationship with his goody-two-shoes brother, Slausen. While I love the Jason Voorheeses and the Michael Myerses of the world, I sometimes prefer my Slashers to have a little more going on for them than the “strong silent type”.

The movie quickly turns into a bit of a psychological horror show after the plot twist is made perfectly clear. I’d hate to ruin it for any of you, so, uh, stop reading if you don’t want to know.

Anyhow, you find out that Slausen and Davy are the same guy, but with split personalities. It’s actually fairly well hidden through most of the movie and caught me slightly off guard, I will admit. I was a bit disappointed that the wax mannequins didn’t get much to do, as I felt they were the creepiest aspect of the film. Still, the ending is a major head trip, as you find out that all of Molly’s friends are really wax mannequins that Slausen brought to life with his mental powers. It leaves you with the nagging question of whether the teenagers were mannequins through the whole movie or if they were just turned into them halfway through. Personally, I like flicks that leave me with a few puzzling questions at the end.

The movie reminded me a lot of the ill-conceived remake of “House of Wax” made in 2005, and it’s pretty obvious that that film drew more inspiration from “Tourist Trap” than the flick it was supposed to be remaking. So if any of you (likely, most of you) were disappointed with the aforementioned “House of Wax” remake, then I’d recommend you check this film out and see a similar-but-better version of that story.

Grade: C+

Based on a children’s book I’ve never heard of, “The Seeker” is a pretty formulaic PG-rated fantasy flick, but aren’t they all? Predictable (and at times, trite) though it may have been, it was certainly a fun venture that’s sure to please the Harry Potter-hungry tykes during the downtime between sequels. I actually found it to be far less childish and goofy than the trailers made it out to be, which was a pleasant surprise to say the least. Although “The Seeker” isn’t a masterpiece, it’s a good movie to take your kids to and one you parents might enjoy a little, as well.

Will Stanton (Alexander Ludwig) is your average everyday ordinary by-the-books not special whatsoever nothing amazing could ever possibly happen to him no seriously he’s totally normal fourteen year-old kid. Then one day a legion of mystical guardians called the Old Ones (not to be confused with the Lovecraftian Old Ones, who drive people insane) inform him that he is the Seeker, a warrior of the Light entrusted to gather all seven magical signs before the Dark destroys the world. Guess he wasn’t so ordinary after all. Will isn’t so hot on the idea of being responsible for the welfare of the Earth, but he doesn’t have much time to mull it over, as the Rider (Christopher Eccleston) is determined to destroy Will and usher in the Dark, leaving Will with only five days to get the job done.

Yeah, it doesn’t get more formulaic than “Light vs. Dark”, but at the end of the day this is a kid’s movie, so just because we 20-somethings have seen a jillion movies and TV shows that extol the virtues of light and the evils of dark doesn’t mean every 9 year-old has. While the story itself is fairly cut and dry, Director David L. Cunningham manages to inject some life into it with some very colorful and at times, somewhat frightening cinematography. The scene where Will is being interrogated by the evil mall security guards is particularly well done. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say this is a scary movie by children’s standards, it can get pretty intense. Walden Media also throws there hand in, providing their usual top-notch special effects. “The Seeker” isn’t as heavy with digital effects as some of their other projects, like “Lord of the Rings”, but what they do provide is up to their typical standard of excellence.

There are good and bad things about the presentation of the plot. While it basically reduces down to an “item collect” storyline, they manage to pull it off better than I expected. What I had anticipated was Will quickly gathering all the signs in rapid succession near the end of the flick as time ran out, but they actually managed to spread out his discovery of each sign at a consistent and steady pace that worked with the other plotlines running throughout the movie. As for the bad, “The Seeker” falls back on a few blatant clichés. For instance, they introduce a hooded mystery villain halfway through the film, but their identity is obvious from the start since there’s really only one suspect. And of course, when the villain is unmasked they play it off as some grand revelation when even the seven year-olds in my audience saw it coming an hour beforehand.

Is “The Seeker” a bad movie? Nah, not really. Is it a predictable but entertaining kid’s flick? Yeah, that’s probably the better description. I think to really enjoy the movie you have to be in the target audience, but as far as flicks aimed at kids go, it treats its audience with far more respect than most of the competition (not a single fart or burp gag in the whole flick).

Grade: B-