Eye Candy #513 - "Psych 9"

Psych 9:  A low-budget horror movie from Ghost House Underground, about a young woman named Roslyn (Sara Foster), who takes a job working evenings collating records at a closed hospital.  The hospital, in addition to the usual treatment areas, also included a psych ward.   With only the company of a lone security guard and a doctor on the fifth floor arranging the psych ward records, she is all by her lonesome.  And faster than you can “Jack Nicholson snowbound in Colorado!”, Roslyn begins to see and hear things she can’t explain, like ghostly images on the security cameras and vivid hallucinations involving people who aren’t there.  And all of it may be connected to the Night Hawk serial killer that is targeting women near and around the closed hospital.  Or all of it may have something to do with Roslyn‘s own history of mental illness.   Or all of it could just be crap.   Cary Elwes plays a psychiatrist that Roslyn encounters in the hospital.  Michael Biehn plays a cop tracking down the Night Hawk killer.  Chock full of all kinds of self-indulgent editing and quick-cuts, this film is easily less than the sum of its parts.  The plot is really a mess, trying to be psychological and supernatural at the same time.  The “reveal”, when it comes, doesn’t really resolve anything (like the Night Hawk killer: we find out who it is, and why, but not how).  Foster’s acting leaves a lot to be desire - she places Roslyn firmly in sad-sack mode from the first scene, making her neither sympathetic or likable.   Here’s a thought - if you’re going to have a heroine, make people want to root for the heroine.  Elwes is fine in his role, but he can’t carry the picture.  This is not the first film to mine this territory (“Session 9” amongst others) and therei s nothing remarkable here.  Woodchuck sez, “Skip it.“

Eye Candy #512 - "Let Me In"

Let Me In:  What we have here is a well-made little reduction of vampire mythology, stripping away the hyper-sexuality, beauty, and hedonism, to reveal the lonely life of someone dependent on the blood of others to survive who also happens to explode in direct sunlight.  Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee, from “The Road”) is a young, lonely boy who lives in a single parent home and is the object of violence for a sadistic local bully.  Then one day, two drifters, a vampire named Abby (Chloe “Hit Girl” Moretz) and her “father” (Richard Jenkins) move in next door, and suddenly the town of Los Alamos, New Mexico isn’t going to be the same.  Owen and Abby strike up a tentative friendship despite Abby’s wishes, as the bodies start to pile up around town.  Elias Koteas plays a detective investigating the murders.  Director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) says that he is using the horror genre as a metaphor for adolescence and he certainly wouldn’t be the first.  Look at movies like “I Was a Teenage Werewolf”, “Teeth” and even “Teen Wolf”.   But  I think it’s even simpler than that: it’s about love and friendship.  It’s about what happens when two desperately lonely people find comfort with one another, even if one is a 12-year-old boy and the other a much older vampire.  McPhee and Moretz are just great together - their scenes seem so effortless and natural.  Jenkins and Koteas are also well-cast.  The film isn’t played for gore, though there are some violent, bloody scenes.  But Reeves juxtaposes those scenes against ones of tenderness between the two leads.  It seems perfectly reasonable for Owen to ask Abby if she wants ‘to go steady” as the blood dries on her chin.  In any other film, that would be comedic moment.  Very little in the way of special effects, and the climactic fight at the swimming pool is particularly well-staged.  This is not your standard vampire picture, but it’s a very good flick.  Woodchuck sez, “Check it out.”

Eye Candy #511 - "10 to Midnight"

10 to Midnight:   One of the more explicit of the Bronson 1980’s thrillers, it’s very much in the same vein as the “Death Wish” films and their ilk - man on the edge plays by his own rules and often shoots people in the pursuit of good/revenge/justice, etc.  It’s also directed by the venerable Bronson regular, J. Lee Thompson, who started his career directing movies like “The Guns of Navarone” and ended his career directing Charlie in picture after unmemorable picture.  Here Charlie is a grizzled veteran cop Leo Kessler tracking down a slick murderer (Gene Davis) patterned after Ted Bundy, who kills girls while in the nude.  So as you can imagine, there is some nudity in the picture.  Soon Kessler’s own daughter falls into the crosshairs of the murderer, and it’s up to Kessler and his by-the-book partner (played by Andrew Stevens) to get him before he gets her.  Wilford Brimley is here in support in a small role.  The title of the movie has NOTHING to do with the plot of the film (it was arbitrarily chosen by the producers).  Silly, credulity-stretching, with Davis more an irritating villain than a menacing one (he’s got such an odd speech pattern, he sounds like he fell out of community theater; he also has the worst Spanish accent of all time), this film is better than the average Bronson movie (it’s not hard to be better than “Assassination”), but it’s nowhere near good.  Woodchuck sez, “Skip it.”

Eye Candy #510 - "Waiting for Superman"

Waiting for Superman:  This documentary focuses on the failures of the American public education system since the 1970‘s, from declining success and graduation rates to various economic inequities and union inertia, all preventing widespread systemic change that is likely decades overdue, while sharing plenty of the visible government hype about “no child left behind“ and so forth that aren‘t ever realized beyond the campaign promise stage as it‘s derailed by  a lack of will, special interests meddling, and bureaucracy.  Splitting time between focusing on several “maverick” educators including the highly-visible Geoffrey Canada (he appeared in an American Express commercial detailing his school program) that have been able to generate results above the norm by functioning outside the accepted system, as well as several students from different locations and socioeconomic levels around the country and their efforts to get into private and charter schools and out of the public system.  A lot of blame is laid at the feet of the powerful teachers unions.   One of the journalists in the film describes the Democratic Party as the paid federal arm of the union.  Some of their most egregious practices are outlined, included NYC’s infamous “rubber room” (which has since been discontinued, though the backlog of teachers there hasn’t been cleared), its general unwillingness to institute merit pay or do away with tenure for underperforming teachers.  And it’s not a criticism without merit.   It breaks your heart to watch students fall through the cracks, as the system that , as former DC chancellor Michelle Rhee states, “ all becomes about the adults”.  One can only hope that this film outrages and moves just as many people as Guggenheim’s Oscar-winning “An Inconvenient Truth”.   Woodchuck sez, “Must see.”

Eye Candy #509 - "The Eagle"

The Eagle:  Covering much the same territory as the recent “Centurion”, “The Eagle” is about the alleged disappearance of the Roman IX Legion in northern Britain in 2nd century AD, providing a what-if scenario to fill in some of the many conflicting holes in historical record.  Here, the eagle standard of the IX is lost at the time the legion disappears (this would be the eagle of the title).  Channing Tatum is Marcus Flavius Aquila, son of the commander of the IX at the time of its disappearance, and a newly-minted centurion posted to Britain.  He has returned to reclaim his family’s tarnished honor and soon finds himself in battle against the native Britons.  However, fate does not smile on Aquila, and he is discharged from the Roman legion short of his goal.  Aquila and his body-slave Eska (Jamie Bell) head north of Hadrian‘s Wall, into the untamed wilds of Britain in search of the Eagle standard, beset by hostile tribes, and at odds with the terrain and weather.   A miscast Donald Sutherland and a barely-there Mark Strong are here in support.  Director Kevin McDonald is usually solid as a rock, and while this film is watchable, it is not a great movie.  Like the VERY similar “Centurion”, it degenerates into a chase picture.  The choice of accents is odd - the default accent is American (even Mark Strong‘s accent is American), with the Britons speaking Scottish Gaelic.   I guess I’ve just become too inured to hearing British accents for Romans in film.  Some of the dialogue is just bad - everything that comes out of Donald Sutherland’s mouth should have been rewritten.  Also, for being a film about violent war, it’s not that explicit, except when it comes to the treatment of children, one of whom vividly catches a thrown sword in the back while another gets his throat cut (it still only comes in at PG-13).   If you’re not a stickler for historical detail (the crew did as well as they could; nobody has a dictionary for Pictish lying around), it is a watchable time-waster.  Woodchuck sez, “Worth a look.”

Eye Candy #508 - "Paranormal Activity 2"

Paranormal Activity 2:  A bit of a different sequel, where the plot runs concurrently with the goings-on from the first film, as it endeavors to explain what happened to Katie and Micah from part one.  Katie’s sister Kristi, her husband Daniel, stepdaughter Ali, and newborn son Hunter move into a nice house in the ‘burbs near her sister.  After what they think is a break-in, they install security cameras in the house and begin to capture various phenomenon on film, including inanimate objects moving themselves and a possible demonic possession.  Shot in the same sort of faux-amateur style as the original (minus most of the shaky handi-cam, given that all the security cams are mounted), and still very low-tech, there are some spooky bits here as the family comes to terms with something that wants the baby boy for its own reasons.   Surprisingly, indie director Tod Williams is helming this (and its announced sequel) and he does a good job not recycling most of the tricks from the first one.  And while the back story introduced is a little on the hokey side and needs more fleshing out, this is still an entertaining flick.  A much larger budget this time around (the first was shot for something like $15k and grossed over $100 million; this time it's $2.5 million), I’m sure the studios were happy with the performance of this one, as well.  Cast is still mostly unknowns (Sprague Grayden as Kristi, being the exception), but does well.  I liked it.  Woodchuck sez, “Check it out.”

Eye Candy #507 - "Cruising"

Cruising:  It’s a rare thing when the first words that come to mind to describe a movie are “exploitative trash”.  Directed by William Friedkin (who hasn’t made a great movie since the 1970’s) and based on the 1970 book of the same name, the plot involves a homosexual slasher stalking members of the gay S&M community in New York City. A police officer, Steve Burns (played by Al Pacino), is tasked with going undercover to flush the killer out.  Burns immerses in their culture, exploring his own sexuality and eventually having gay sex, all in order to get his man, so to speak.  Watching this film, you would believe that every homosexual in New York City has a handlebar mustache, a leather jacket and obligatory peaked hat, and lives only to dance, make out, and have sex.  Apparently, in 1980, you could throw a rock and hit a group of denim clad gay men loitering about the city, looking for tail.  Somehow…I doubt that.   Even the Village People had greater depth of character. And the only aberration to the stereotype (i.e. the guy who is actually closer to reality than the others), oh yeah, he gets murdered by one of the ‘deviants‘.  Crude, homophobic, and chock full of egregious stereotypes, this is about as an even-handed a portrayal of homosexuality as The Blue Oyster Bar from the “Police Academy” movies.  And even if you were able to stomach the misleading salaciousness, you’re still left with a not-very-good thriller full of generally unlikable characters, some just plain weird scenes (there is one in particular involving a big black guy wearing nothing but a jockstrap and a cowboy hat during an interrogation that is just ODD), with a plot that asks more questions than it answers.  Woodchuck sez, “Skip it.”

Eye Candy #506 - "The Oxford Murders"

The Oxford Murders:   A very stilted, overly theatrical film, about an eccentric professor (John Hurt) and doctoral candidate student (Elijah Wood) solving a string of mathematically-based murders in and around Oxford University.  Based on the book of the same name,  this not a thrilling thriller and comes across as a poor man‘s Umberto Ecco.  The dialogue here is equal parts pretentious and crap.  The people in the film don’t talk and act like human beings, they talk like characters in a bad stage play, nor are 99% of them likable in any way.  The reveal is telegraphed out an hour in advance if you’re paying attention and delivered with a complete lack of profundity.  Disappointing all the way around.  Woodchuck sez, “Skip it.”

Eye Candy #505 - "Ong Bak 3"

Ong Bak 3:  I liked the original “Ong Bak” movie.  I loved “Ong Bak 2”.  And I’m disappointed in “Ong Bak 3”.  A direct sequel to Part 2, this film continues the story of Tien (star Tony Jaa) and his fight against the traitor Lord Rasajena, as well as the evil, crow-themed Bhuti Sangkha.  Captured by Rasajena, every bone in Tien’s body is broken by staves and the film spends most of the time charting his recovery through meditation, Buddhism, and dance, while Bhuti Sangkha consolidates his power in the region.   A worthless subplot about a curse is thrown into to give the otherwise idle Rasajena something to do. Fewer fights than in the previous film, with long stretches in between devoted to rejuvenating Tien‘s spirit (I understand the Buddhism aspects may appeal to some viewers, but I personally don’t watch Asian chop-socky flicks for personal enlightenment) and at 95 minutes, this film drags.  I don’t know about you, but I find endless shots of a guy sitting in the lotus position to be the antithesis of the words 'action' and 'film'.   We get several actors back from “Ong Bak 2”, with Petchtai Wongkamlao (a familiar face from various other Jaa films) stealing the show as village idiot Mhen.  If you’re looking for action equal to part 2,  you’re going to be disappointed here.  What there is…is good, it just leaves you wanting more.  It’s obvious that in creating this film, Jaa got lost somewhere along the way (and given his brief conversion to Buddhist monk after its completion, this is not surprising).   Woodchuck sez, “Worth a look.”

Eye Candy #504 - "Showdown in Little Tokyo"

Showdown in Little Tokyo:  Brandon Lee’s auspicious American debut is a sloppy, dumb buddy-cop picture with two LA cops (Lee and that other action movie stalwart Dolph Lundgren) of the “shoot first-ask questions later” school facing off against the Yakuza, led by Yoshida (played by Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa).  Seems the Yakuza are moving into the methamphetamine trade, moving drugs around the city in “Red Dragon” beer bottles and wiping out any competitors to their plans, which usually involves them showing up and spraying machine guns like they have no idea how to operate them.   Our two cops, Kenner and Murata, must also protect a chanteuse Minako (Tia Carrere), who has information about Yoshida’s crimes and is marked for death.  This film couldn’t be more earlier 90’s if it tried - all the Yakuza wear ridiculous loud suits (we‘re talking burgundy suit, black shirt, turquoise tie combos), only cursory time is spent anywhere near authentic Japanese culture (you’d think that all Japanese people ate sushi off naked white chicks as a matter of course), and the score is synth-pop nightmare of the worst kind.  Throw in a little incidental nudity here and there, and voila!  Plus we are treated to some of the crappiest dialogue in the history of cinema.  Literally every line that comes out of Lee’s mouth, his lackluster delivery notwithstanding, is crapola.  It‘s so bad at times, you wince.  Sure, director Mark L. Lester gave us “Commando”, but he was consigned to direct-to-DVD at the end of the last century and rightfully so.   Thankfully, the screenwriting duo responsible for this abysmal production haven’t worked much since.  Just bad, bad, bad.  Woodchuck sez, “If I said there was anything redeeming here, I’d be lying.”

Eye Candy #503 - "Monsters"

Monsters:  Some would classify this as a “horror” movie, I feel it’s straight sci-fi.  Six years in the future, alien life piggy-backed down on a NASA deep-space probe and has been slowly taking over more and more of Central America (mostly a big chunk of Mexico).   An American photographer, Andrew, is tasked by his boss with escorting his daughter Samantha out of Mexico before the aliens enter their ‘migration season” at which point, they will be trapped for an additional six months.  Mexico, which hasn’t been a great place to bushwhack through since…EVER, is made even more dangerous by giant octopus-like aliens on land and in the water, as Andrew and Samantha try to get to the border of the United States and relative safety, where a giant wall is supposed to contain the aliens.  All does not go as planned.  It’s not an alien invasion flick - by the time the film starts, the aliens have been here for years and humanity is adapting in various ways.  It’s “Still Life with Aliens“, with enough recognizable elements to be the day after tomorrow, but still also a little off-kilter, a little skewed with what is now “normal“.  With a budget of under $500,000 and only two lead actors (both relative unknowns), first-time feature director Gareth Edwards has managed to create a solid little film here.  Sure, the budget was limiting, but it still looks better than dozens of movies I’ve seen with bigger budgets (Edwards did the effects shots himself).  This film has more in common with alien sci-fi films like “District 9”, about grappling with who we are and what we don’t understand, and avoids being a cartoony mess like “Independence Day”  or “Mars Attack” where it‘s all about body count.  At right around 90 minutes, it’s not a seat-of-the-pants thriller, but I don’t see that as a negative.  Woodchuck sez, “Worth a look.”