Nov 1: This Film is Not Yet Rated

"Kirby Dick's exposé about the American movie ratings board."

Directed by: Kirby Dick, Rated: UR, 97 minutes

This Film Is Not Yet Rated is an eye-opening documentary about the inner workings of the MPAA, the group of people that decide the ratings of every major motion picture from studio blockbusters, to indie darlings. It leaves you incredibly frustrated with a broken system that was set up in 1966 with a main mission to avoid censorship, yet has managed to turn itself into a regulating body that does exactly that in its own twisted way. It's a documentary that takes a side but, when the facts of the argument are presented, it's incredibly easy to join the fight. Oh, and it's also incredibly funny as the ridiculousness of the entire system is so laughable. 

You realize how much this movie gets away with. 

Director Kirby Dick is out on a mission to expose the MPAA rating system for what it is- an understated, unfair, and way too secretive board that has way too much power. The MPAA has been known to actually ruin filmmakers and their work, as getting slapped with an NC-17 rating for an up and coming filmmaker is a near death sentence. The film compares ratings for multiple films and tries to explain what justifies a PG-13, R, or NC-17 rating. Dick compares big studio releases with far smaller indie films and shows that if you have money behind the production, you're sure to get by with much, much more. Intertwined with Dick's own investigation into the MPAA (with the help of a very enthusiastic private investigator) are interviews with filmmakers who have experienced critical issues with the MPAA and their own appeals for the system.

Founding president of the MPAA, Jack Valenti is one of the most self-obsessed arrogant son of a bitches I have ever seen. 

This Film is Not Yet Rated challenges and exposes a system that's well past its expiration date. It literally leaves you floored with what films have gotten away with and leaves you wondering what films had to have been scrapped entirely by an unfair rating slapped upon it. Dick does a terrific job at challenging the system and breaks it down for all of us to understand and fight against. It's a film that exposes so many secrets of the MPAA, the board will never be what it used to be and the demands placed upon it require scrambling from the corrupt process. It's a real eye-opening documentary and I think it completely does what it has set out to do. Realistically, change will not happen over night, nor has a lot been changed in the six years since this film's release, but it's a good jump-start in the right direction. It also gives a greater insight to the film-making process and the loops filmmakers need to jump through in order to get the product, that they work so hard on, out to the public. It gives you an added appreciation for the things that they do and makes you admire them even more. I would highly recommend this doc and hope that more changes the film suggests happen sooner than later.

The Good:

the work Kirby Dick and his team go about to expose the MPAA is admirable and the secrets that uncover are things no one has known about before

The Bad:

knowing that such an out-dated system still holds so much power in Hollywood and that the people behind it are not publicly known

The Ugly:

not knowing if huge changes will ever happen and if the system can fix itself before more damage is done

7.6/10

Discussion Question:

If you were to set up your own rating system, how would you go about it and what factors would you consider?

Trailer:

Oct 31: Silent Hill

"A woman goes in search for her daughter, within the confines of a strange, desolate town called Silent Hill. Based on the video game."

Directed by: Christopher Gans, Rated: R, 125 minutes

Every Halloween I watch Silent Hill. It's turned into a little tradition for myself and have never really been able to pinpoint the exact moment I decided to keep it up. It's not even the scariest movie I've ever seen but it still fits the holiday and leaves me a little on edge. There's just something about Silent Hill that keeps me coming back for more and you can only imagine how sad I was when I heard such horrible things about its recent sequel. But I can say with confidence that Silent Hill is the greatest video game adaptation ever made.

It might help that this awful man had nothing to do with it. 

The film follows Rose (Radha Mitchell), a woman who loses her daughter and has plenty of signs leading her to a small town called Silent Hill. Rose travels to the abandoned town after many warnings that it holds plenty of dark secrets. Once she arrives, Rose discovers first-hand the warnings are true, and the town changes into hell on earth, with the walls peeling away and demon-like creatures spawn out of the darkness. As Rose uncovers more secrets she comes to find the town is cursed and that only way to escape is to "go deeper" and find a way to reverse the curse and save her daughter. Rose is joined by police officer, Cybil (Laurie Holden) and encounters plenty of townspeople that leave in constant fear.

Too bad my disgust for her in The Walking Dead ruins her quite a bit in anything else she's in. 

Silent Hill makes you hate tornado sirens. Whenever a siren goes off in the film, you know shit's going to happen and that terror is right around the corner. Each time the wall's begin to peel away, you get tense, again knowing that awful is coming. It's a film that continues to build suspense and only gets worse as it progresses. Not only does the siren provide tension, but the visuals that accompany each change are just as creepy. Seeing a desolate town dissolve into an even greater darkness, literally on the edge of hell, is just as creepy. Of course, you can't mention Silent Hill without mentioning Pyramid Head, the franchise's signature character. A brute of man stumbling through hell, carrying a massive ax and ripping the skin off of innocents is quite the visual of fear. He plays a minor, yet memorable part, and is more than okay sharing the creature-feature with a handful of other demons, zombie-nurses, and other undead nightmares.

He will f**k you the f**k up.

While Silent Hill has a handful of weak moments towards the end, it still is quite the ride. It's dark, it's creepy, and it leaves you paranoid. You'll hate sirens of any kind after watching the film and if you are a fan of the video games, you'll love the film. It provides plenty of scares and moments of "oh f**k that did not just happen!". It's well acted with a solid script (written by Roger Avary, Pulp Fiction) and has both visual and mental fears playing on on screen. Sure, it plays off of the cliche little kids are spooky aspect, but it still brings much more to the game than other generic horror films. I would highly recommend it and I look forward to continuing my Halloween tradition for years to come. Here's hoping the eventual third flick in the series will be a worthy follow-up to this mini-masterpiece.

The Good:

overall creep factor that lingers with you and the fact that it's a terrific adaptation of an already terrifying video game

The Bad:

some cliches that leave you a little frustrated, but nothing that ruins the film completely

The Ugly:

... tornado sirens

7.5/10

Discussion Question:

Besides Silent Hill (and Resident Evil) are there any other good video game adaptations?

Trailer:

Oct 26: Casino Royale- Review #300

"In his first mission, James Bond must stop Le Chiffre, a banker to the world's terrorist organizations, from winning a high-stakes poker tournament at Casino Royale in Montenegro."

Directed by: Martin Campbell, Rated: PG-13, 144 minutes

As a quick preface to this review I want to state that this is not only my 300th review of the year, but also my 400th post. Thank you to all of my readers as I couldn't have gotten this far without you!

Casino Royale reintroduces us to James Bond, the martini-loving, woman-seducing, badass secret agent. And it does it in such glorious fashion, combining everything we love about the character and adding a tad bit of Bourne, a wee bit of Indiana Jones, and enough originality to make the 50 year old icon feel fresh. It's far from your formulaic Bond flick and manages to not only keep you guessing, but even fearing for the life of a man you know cannot die. It's suspenseful, it's action-packed, it's funny, it's sexy, and most importantly, is a film that Bond deserves. Oh, it's worth mentioning that Casino Royale also boasts not one, but two incredible openings. Yeah, it's that good. 

Sorry, THREE incredible openings if you count the amazing opening credits. 

Newly promoted to a double-0 agent at MI:6, a secret British intelligence agency that rivals the CIA, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is thrown head first into an elaborate mission where both his skills and strengths will be tested. Now, Bond isn't quite as sophisticated and suave as we've seen in the past. He's very rough around the edges, reckless at times, and quick to shoot. He's impulsive with all of his decisions, from what to do or whom to pursue (with both bad guys and women). Under the (sometimes) supervision of M (Judi Dench) Bond is sent to Montenegro to prevent the evil "banker to the terrorists", Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) from winning a high stakes poker game in which he can recoup his losses and pay back his own boss after a failed terrorist attack. To enter the game, a beautiful treasury secretary, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) gives Bond $10 million and flirts with him just enough to gain his attention. Under pressure from seemingly every angle, Bond must defeat Le Chiffre in poker, prevent him from paying his own employer as well as taking down his syndicate. 

While Le Chiffre is far from the most memorable of villains, Mikkelsen makes him very hard to forget. 

Casino Royale is a modern Bond movie for a modern audience. Daniel Craig is terrific as Bond and he's far from what we have come to expect in the role (I mean, he's got blonde hair and blue eyes!). Craig manages to make the iconic character his own, however, and turns in a much more vulnerable performance than the past actors who have played 007. He's much more human and relatable, even if he can jump from buildings and take out baddies left and right. This Bond actually bleeds, gets tortured, and at the heart of the story, actually truly falls in love. He's a man driven by emotion, not by a title or a gun, and in doing so he not only makes mistakes but suffers as well. We're well past the days of perfect heroes who never get shot and get the girl in the end, and Casino Royale focuses on that aspect brilliantly. 

Vesper is a very smart woman and much more of a challenge for Bond than previous love interests. 

Now, Casino Royale isn't all about the emotion. Director Martin Campbell crafts incredible action sequences deserving of this bigger, better, and more gritty Bond. From the opening black and white sequence that introduces us to 007, to the following chase sequence that sees Bond chasing a man who jumps and climbs over every obstacle like a crazy monkey, Campbell blends suspense with shock and awe. It's a terrific combination that gives nods to previous Bond films while recreating the hero like we have never seen before. Along with the great visuals, David Arnold gives us a musical score that highlights the somber moments beautifully and accentuates the dramatic tension of the action just as well. The iconic, nay, legendary Bond theme finds its way into the movie, but does it as more of a nod to the past as it is used more of a stepping stone into Casino Royale as opposed to a continued motif. The same can be said of the trademark lines of Bond, as the movie brushes off the martini quote and completely destroys his signature Aston Martin. Again, these nods reminds us we're in 007's universe but also tells the audience that this is indeed, a different kind of Bond. 

Bleeding and dirty, this is not what you expect James Bond to look like. 

As different as Casino Royale is from its predecessors, it still is a true Bond movie at heart. With incredible action sequences, beautiful women left and right, and a hero who knows what needs to get done no matter what the cost is, the film reintroduces the Ian Fleming legend with both dramatic and suspenseful justice. Daniel Craig completely takes over the role and does whatever he pleases with it, running off carelessly after a bad guy and actually falling in love with a woman. Casino Royale by itself is an exceptional film and adding the Bond label to it only makes it greater. It's a blockbuster with not only a smart script, but a flawed hero. Much recognition needs to be given to both the filmmakers and the cast, especially Craig who defied all expectations placed upon him and can easily be called one of (if not the best) actors to play James Bond. Whenever the film dives deep into a full out action flick or even a suspenseful poker movie, we're reminded that it is indeed a James Bond movie. The film ends with the iconic line, "The name's Bond. James Bond", only cementing the fact that he has indeed returned.

The Good:

great action sequences that contrast very well with the more emotional moments that bring Bond down to a more realistic, on-earth level

The Better:

even better performances from the supporting cast, from the villain to the girl, and Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, and Giancarlo Giannini

The Best:

Daniel Craig as a new breed of Bond that's both vulnerable and badass, with an added touch of his charisma, charm, and complexity

9.3/10

Discussion Question:

Where does Daniel Craig rank among the actors who have played Bond and what do you think he does better then the rest?

Trailer:

Oct 21: The Prestige

"The rivalry between two magicians is exacerbated when one of them performs the ultimate illusion."

Directed by: Christopher Nolan, Rated: PG-13, 130 minutes

There have been very few movies about magic that have seen the light of day. Sure, the Harry Potter movies have to deal with witchcraft and wizardry but very few films deal with real magicians  using sleight-of-hand and illusions to wow their audiences. With The Prestige, not only do we see the inner-workings of two stage magicians but we see the lengths these two men will go to discover the other's tricks while maintaining their own secrecy. It's a terrific look at an obsession that really ruins two men and turns the story of magic into something much more relatable than a rabbit coming out of a hat. 

Who wants to watch THIS for two hours?

Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are two magicians working together under Milton (Ricky Jay). As time goes on, each man is given a chance to show off his own ability and the two begin developing their own shows. After a magic trick of Milton's goes terribly wrong (at the possible fault of Borden), the two split course and go in different directions, Borden finding his own place on stage and Angier, haunted by the tragedy, vowing to ruin Borden, who has apparently come up with the world's greatest trick. Angier requests the help of Cutter (Michael Caine) to discover the secret behind Borden's "Transporting Man" illusion, a trick that appears to involve some sort of teleportation. As Angier becomes more obsessed with discovering the secrets, he goes to great lengths to replicate the trick, using a double and then eventually a machine created by Nikola Tesla (David Bowie). Layer upon layer is slowly peeled away and we, as the audience, are torn between the two men, never knowing which side to truly embrace. 

Seriously, why isn't David Bowie in everything!?

The Prestige is a masterful look at the lengths obsession can lead and the tolls it takes on the personal lives of these two men. At first, Angier is thought to be the hero but as his fall into this obsession grows deeper, he becomes lost in the mess. Borden is a man who just wants to have a family but a part of him pulls him away, forcing him to sacrifice many aspects of his life in order to maintain the illusion he's been running for years. It's quite tragic and as you see him give up more, you begin to understand and support what he does. A large part of how this teeter-tottering of heroes is attributed to the incredible performances given by both Jackman and Bale. Bale, comfortable with director Christopher Nolan, is at his best, expressing both arrogance (at first) and eventually, pathos, as more is revealed. His character's progression is amazing to watch and by the film's end, you're almost completely on his side. Jackman is in perhaps his finest role and he shows us that he's more than a beefcake laced with Adamantium. He's a hero we all can cheer for, given the circumstances, and seeing his fall from grace is that much harder to watch. Both men continually go at each other on stage and off, and the literal war that develops between them pulls you back forth. Neither man outshines or out-acts the other and this really plays into the actual story. 

Batman vs. Wolverine proves to be incredibly interesting. 

The Prestige is a dark and pretty depressing little movie. The characters feel genuinely real and very human and the situations they're put into receive reactions I feel most people would share in themselves. Obsession wraps itself around these individuals and the lengths they go to uncover and hide secrets is entertaining to watch, but also heartbreaking. One man is desperate to unveil a secret while the other is desperate enough to keep one hidden. It's a genius little cat and mouse game that turns into a violent duel and many casualties are caught up in between the mess. At the film's conclusion, there is no obvious "winner" as both men have deteriorate plenty and have sacrificed a lot already. The Prestige is not all about the magic as much as it is about the mentalities and personalities of these two men and questions how far is too far when trying to one-up the other. It's a terrific film that solidifies itself towards the top of Christopher Nolan's filmography. I would highly recommend it. 

The Good:

the countless "illusions" that leave you guessing, even when you have a rough idea of where everything MAY be heading

The Better:

as sad as it is, seeing the lengths two men will go to be the best does prove entertaining in the mystery 

The Best:

incredible acting by not only its two leads, but by the many recognizable supporting actors

9.0/10

Trailer:

Oct 5: Slither

"A small town is taken over by an alien plague, turning residents into zombies and all forms of mutant monsters."

Directed by: James Gunn, Rated: R, 95 minutes

Slither is the king of B-movies, blending just the right amount of twisted humor, plenty of gore, and cringe-worthy moments that make you sick in both the stomach and the head. It's a movie made by horror fans who know what true fans want and deliver it in the most over-the-top fashion. Slither is a horror movie of all sorts, emulating monster flicks, invasion movies, and even zombie films. It's a hodge podge of horror thrown into a pot, that although sometimes doesn't quite stick, still proves to be one hell of a ride. 

Whenever you can see tentacles bursting out of the chest of Michael Rooker, you know you're gonna have a good time. 

The womanizing and abusive Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) takes a young woman out into the woods for some "fun time". Its here that he discovers a fallen meteorite of some kind and after his redneck curiosity gets the best of him, a parasitic worm crawls into his body and takes over his brain. Grant Grant changes, slowly becoming a giant worm/squid-like man hybrid. He makes an unexpected visit to a young fling and "impregnates" her with his worm thing. After she grows larger and larger, she unleashes thousands of these slithering worms in a small town known more for its obsession with deer hunting than anything else. It's up to Sheriff Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion), an incompetent mayor (Gregg Henry), and Grant Grant's wife, Starla (Elizabeth Banks) to save the town from total destruction and survive the night themselves.

Captain Hammer to the rescue. 

Slither is by no means a perfect film. However, you realize almost immediately that its intentions are to never be such a thing. The film references countless horror movies of the past, from The Blob to Dawn of the Dead and relishes in the fact it's trying so hard to be similar. It's cheesy, over-the-top, and packed full of so many gross out moments you can't help laugh your way out of it. The creature designs are simple, as they really are just slugs that move along, throat-raping their victims into zombie-like statuses. And although the slugs are the main monster of the film, there are plenty of other bigger creatures that are even more f**ked up. Each "reveal" is both unexpected and hilarious, in the "I can't believe I'm watching this!" kind of way. 

Yep, that's a person. 

Slither isn't for everyone. It's very violent, very bloody, and has all the messy bits of people and animals you're not meant to see. It's absolutely f**ked up in nearly every aspect, but it's so glorious you can't help but enjoy it. It's a film made for lovers of this kind of movie and doesn't hold anything back to appease those unfamiliar with the genre. The story is simple, even lacking actually, but when has the plot really mattered in a sub-par horror flick? It's simple a means of chugging the movie along so we can see more creative kills, creepier creatures, and have a laugh about it all. I'd definitely recommend Slither. Just keep your mouth covered. 

The Good:

a terrific throwback to horror movies of the past, adding a modern take that's more f**ked up than it should be... oh, and Nathan Fillion of course

The Bad:

severely lacking in any depth for the characters, with each cliche getting worse and worse (yet, it's still fun)

The Ugly:

the film's a little too messed up at times, with a climactic osmosis orgy that's just too weird

Overall: 7.0/10

Trailer:

Guest Review: The Black Dahlia

So Ries Murphy, a Marine in the United States Military took some time out of his "Fight of the Good Fight" to write another review for The Cinematic Katzenjammer (He wrote a review of The Frighteners in August and one for The Trip in July)

I recently had the unusual and unfortunate experience of watching Brian De Palma’s take on the James Ellroy novel, The Black Dahlia, within forty eight hours of finishing the novel itself. For a few reasons, this review will be a little longer than others, and perhaps a little more serious than this site is used to. I think I do this partly because the subject matter is very real (Elizabeth Short aka The Dahlia was very much a real woman and was very much murdered in a very real-world Los Angeles) I usually like to write spoiler-free reviews, as I find nothing grates on me more than not being able to read a review of a film because it gives away what happens over the course of the movie. That’s especially pertinent, I think, when it comes to a noir film. I mean, come on. That would be like if someone told me the end of Chinatown. I’d probably slap them until they told me something else.

That’s how the hard-boiled did it in the 40’s. 

But here’s the skinny on it - The Black Dahlia is so fundamentally different between the two mediums in question here that spoilers are kind of necessary to explain my complaints. Bear in mind that two seconds worth of research into the real life murder of Elizabeth Short will reveal her mystery to be unsolved, so any and all “twists” I reveal from this fiction are just that - fiction. Some rogue part of me picked up the book wondering how Ellroy would tackle one of the most infamous unsolved murders this side of Jack the Ripper. That rogue part of me was not only satisfied by novel’s end, but horrified, mesmerized and also slightly obsessed. Then came the film junkie side. He wanted to see how De Palma tackled the book and fit it into a movie. The result, I’m afraid, was anything but memorable, and I think I know why.

The Black Dahlia stars Josh Hartnett, and Aaron Eckhart as 1940’s LAPD cops Bucky Bleichert and Lee Blanchard. Also noteworthy are the sultry Scarlett Johansson as Kay Lake and the ever marvelous Hilary Swank as the enigmatic Madeleine Inscott. These leading cast, I feel, are the strongest points of the film - Eckhart’s Lee Blanchard in particular was spot on the money. Even though we’ve seen Eckhart go to the dark side before as Two-Face in The Dark Knight, his transformation as portrayed here is no less upsetting or surprising. I honestly believe Eckhart is one of our most underrated actors, one who can portray surprising versatility, especially when displaying a fall from grace. It’s unfortunate that two of his most memorable performances so far were either overshadowed by a once-in-a-lifetime performance by Heath Ledger or a not-so-impressive-film by De Palma. Either way, kudos to Eckhart for bringing Lee Blanchard to the silver screen in a way that I feel stuck close by what Ellroy brought to life.

Harvey Dent’s grandfather, circa 1947. Obsession and consequent insanity must run in the family.

To understand the discrepancy between The Black Dahlia and The Black Dahlia, first you must have a basic understanding of...you guessed it...the Black Dahlia. In 1947, a woman was pushing a stroller along the side of a Los Angeles road when she came across the remains of a young woman. The remains were grossly mutilated - the woman was cut in half, her reproductive organs and other vitals removed. There wasn’t a drop of blood left in her body, nor was there any to be found at the crime scene or around the two halves of her torso. Her legs and neck were broken, and her head was virtually crushed by some blunt force trauma. What we remember most, however, about the Dahlia is the infamous Glasgow Smile - the fact that someone had cut her face from ear to ear in a leering grin. (For those playing the home game, Christopher Nolan’s Joker from The Dark Knight had the scars of a Glasgow Smile.)

Yeah. Some seriously cheerful sh*t. 

There’s something so indescribably horrifying about murders like this - they appear at random, are never solved, and are so insanely brutal that we cannot even comprehend what would drive someone to commit such atrocities. It makes it worse that it’s real, and that reality lends itself to a certain sort of fear. It’s a kind of fear that isn’t contained by the edge of the screen. It’s not like Alien, where you can go home and comfort yourself that some Space-Jockey-Face-Sucker isn’t going to jump out of your air conditioning vents or splash up out of your toilet while you’re dropping some logs.
 

Have fun imagining that one, kids.

James Ellroy understands this fear - he understands not only the fear but the madness that produces the fear. He gets it, and the book is horrifying.

The movie, on the other hand, is anything but.

For one thing, we see a single glimpse of the Dahlia herself in the last scene of the film. This can be worked in one of three ways - either the suspense builds itself up to the point that we can’t handle it anymore, or we just stop caring what she looks like because we’ve moved on with the picture, or the third option is that when the big reveal finally comes, it’s wildly anticlimactic because we’ve spent the whole movie waiting for it. What De Palma did fell victim to that third slot, plus it lost points for being wildly inaccurate. If you’re going to reveal to us what the Dahlia’s face looked like, show it to us the way it really was. The real version is terrifying enough. You don’t need to stylize a murder that actually happened.

Another upsetting trait of the film is that the Dahlia is pushed largely into the background to make room for other story-lines that happen closer to the front. Okay, I’ll buy it. The book had a lot of sub-plots, so why not follow them, right? The movie seemed able to handle this for the first half of the film - it stuck close enough to the book that I was jazzing along, mildly impressed with how De Palma was converting the text to film form. Of course there were abbreviations here and there, and he took liberties with the monologue. All of that would be okay - if the movie addressed the actual Dahlia storyline for more than a total of twenty minutes, and if it didn’t cut out half (and boy, do I mean half) the book.

I know what the naysayers (to the naysayer) would reply. “You can’t compare the book to the movie!” Well, yes, I can. The movie was uninteresting, and the reason why it was uninteresting was because it went from character development to happy resolution in a total of about thirty minutes. The reason the book worked was because it took you on a roller coaster from hell through the grungy underbelly of 1940’s LA. Where was that in this film? We see one soft-core porn film, some lesbians making out at a bar and that is about it. I’ll give you a hint: that is nothing to what we read in the book. Some are crying, “The book, the book, shut up about the book!” Absolutely not. This was like seeing a really terrible remake of a great movie. A remake so bad, in fact, that the new filmmakers thought it would be alright to cut out literally half of the storyline and change the ending, as well as four enormous plot points in the middle.

The genre-defining novel’s award-winning plot really tied the room together, man.

The result is a film that should frighten, but just barely amuses. Gone is the macabre fascination that transforms into obsession that comes with the Dahlia. Gone is the horror of her murder. Gone is the police corruption that is explored in enormous depth in the book. (For example: Two side police-style characters are introduced for a single line in the film. Both of the were integral to Bleichert’s investigation into the Dahlia murder in huge neon twist fashion. As in, one of the cops was getting laid by the Dahlia before she was murdered. That would be in the movie, right? Nope.)

Gone is an entire storyline about Bleichert’s partner, Blanchard, going missing. (In the book, Bleichert goes on an acid-trip-esque journey south of the border into Mexico to find his lost partner. Instead he finds the origins of the phrase “dive bar,” a lot of Tijuana drama and Blanchard’s body buried on a beach after about 150 pages of not knowing where he is or what happened to him. He then has to buy out local police and survive being followed by the local law. Compare this to the movie, wherein Blanchard is missing for about ten minutes before falling to his death and having his head exploded on a fountain after getting tackled over a balcony during a shootout.) All I can think of is Eddie Izzard’s monologue on what happens when studios get hold of a good independent film and decide to remake it American style. 

Prophet. Madman. Executive transvestite.

Last but not least, gone are the women. The two women of the tale, Kay Lake and Madeleine Inscott, form the two warring factions for Bleichert’s attention throughout the book. Kay Lake is tough as nails, smart and beautiful. Madeleine is a particularly vulgar and seductive prostitute who makes her money by luring in servicemen off the street. Hilary Swank’s portrayal of Madeleine is a sympathetic, almost lovable character, and Scarlett’s Kay Lake is a sweetheart who’s been through some vague ringer. Kay Lake is anything but a sweetheart in the book. She’s tough, she’s kind of ruthless, and she’s awesome. She lays down the law on Bleichert on more than one occasion, and she becomes the character the reader turns to for strength. Again, not so in the film. Kay Lake is more eye candy and inconsequential filler sensuality than anything else.

As if to tie a bow on everything, The Black Dahlia has a happy f*cking ending. I won’t spoil anything in to much detail here, but let’s be succinct - the book does not have a happy ending. The message the film leaves you with is hopeful, while the message the book leaves you with is...bleak. All in all, this movie was incredibly disappointing to me. I loved The Untouchables and I loved the book. You’d think the film wouldn’t be so explosively bad on my scorecard. Alas, however, it really was. Hopefully I can be rich enough someday that I can convince another director to remake this book the right way. David Fincher, anyone?

The Bottom Line: Read the book. (And no. I don’t say this every time.)

Overall Score: 3.5/10 

Trailer:

Want to write your own review or article for The Cinematic Katzenjammer? Email me here with an idea!

Aug 11: Accepted

"A high school slacker who's rejected by every school he applies to opts to create his own institution of higher learning, the South Harmon Institute of Technology, on a rundown piece of property near his hometown."

Directed by: Steve Pink, Rated: PG-13, 90 minutes

Accepted is a stupid, but very fun comedy that's saved by it's incredibly likable cast. The plot is ridiculous, never even trying to be anything smart and cops out with an even more ridiculous ending. Even then, though, Accepted is very fun and has too much likability, one-liners, and smart improvisation to hate. It also creates one hell of a fake college that would be so fun to attend, even though every bit of it screams "illegal". 

The film also features dozens upon dozens of Apple product placement. Because you know...  

Bartleby (Justin "I'm a Mac" Long) is a slacker who "just got by" in high school. After several attempts at applying for colleges that all resulted in rejection, he decides to create a fake college in an attempt to fool his parents and buy more time until he can get into a real school. Unfortunately, his friend, Schroder (Jonah "I Once Was Huuuge" Hill), makes the fake website all too real, and Bartleby and his friends have hundreds of prospective students showing up to their fake campus. They decide to just go with it and try to make the school something worthwhile, turning the curriculum into a student-driven idea and having classes such as "Rocking Your Face Off 101" and "Walking Around and Thinking About Stuff". Of course, nothing gold can stay and Bartleby and his friends find themselves in hot water as their lies are exposed. Accepted throws in a couple of subplots to the mix, but its still lacking any substance. Schroder does whatever it takes to join a prestigious fraternity at a "rival school", even going about dressing in a hot dog costume and telling people to "Ask me about my weiner!". And Bartleby tries his hardest to win the affection of Monica (Blake "I Can't Stop Pouting" Lively), a life-long crush, even if it means only earning the affection after spending thousands on a camera so she can "find her artistic self".

Even when she's surprised (or angry), Blake manages to pout it up. 

As was previously mentioned, Accepted is good because of the cast. Long and Hill, especially, steal many of their scenes with bits of genius improvisation you can tell were made up on the fly. A large portion of the film was actually unscripted and while it creates some hilarious moments, you can't help but wonder how bad the story suffers because of this fact. The film tries very hard to channel its inner Animal House but when you walk away with just a PG-13 rating, there's a lot that's left desired. It's an interesting thought wondering how good Accepted could have been if it "embraced the raunch" and pushed the limits. 

PG-13 Rating: Disappointing teenage hormones since 1984. 

Even with it's flaws (there are plenty), Accepted is fun and worth a watch. It's nothing you need to track down, as it's on TV all the time, but worth watching on a rainy day or when you're looking for some easy, stupid laughs. Accepted can be looked back on one of the first starring vehicles for Long and Hill, and without it, we probably wouldn't be seeing Long popping up everywhere or even have the 2nd half of Superbad. If anything, you can remember Accepted as the movie review I used the most (and most "unnecessary") quotation marks and parentheses. 

The Good:

Justin Long and Jonah Hill doing their best at improvising and trying their hardest to save an otherwise flat film

The Bad:

a script that lacks any shape or destination and simply chugs along and ends with ridiculous laziness

The Ugly:

some people like him, but I cannot stand Lewis Black and his presence in the film is too irritating to enjoy

Overall: 6.8/10

Trailer:

April 22: Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon

"The next great psycho horror slasher has given a documentary crew exclusive access to his life as he plans his reign of terror over the sleepy town of Glen Echo."

   Behind the Mask is a funny little movie. In a world where classic horror icons co-exist (Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees), a man named Leslie Vernon attempts to follow in their footsteps and become the next horror icon. He gives a documentary crew an inside look into his world and how he's gradually setting up his own little massacre in a quiet, unsuspecting town. The film mixes elements from Scream and Halloween, and has as much laughs as it does blood. The film is a tongue and cheek play on the entire horror genre. As Vernon prepares for his kills, he talks about good cardio (so he can continually chase his victims through the woods without getting winded) and how picking the group of teenagers he will kill is the most important part of it all. He talks about the victims needing healthy libidos, "variety" among the group and, most importantly, a virgin girl to become the "survivor girl" who he can continually haunt for years to come. 

Mothers of gods do not count

    Behind the Mask is a smart comedy for the most part and then a bloody good slasher flick for the rest. Nathan Baesel, in his film debut, plays Leslie Vernon. He has great charisma and charm and his serial killer alter ego is not what you'd expect. He reminds me a little bit of Norman Bates in Psycho, as the everyday nice guy with one hell of a dark secret. It's only when the filmmakers following him learn more about him that his darkness is revealed. When one of his early "hauntings" of his target survivor girl goes wrong and is interrupted by a former psychiatrist of his, Vernon becomes hysterical; happy as hell to see that he finally has an "Ahab", a man willing to do whatever it takes to see his downfall. It is an idea we're accustomed to seeing but never had a name for and is a clever little addition to the film. 

It's a little creepy as well. 

   Overall, I would definitely recommend Behind the Mask. It's a fresh look at an increasingly unoriginal genre that turns the tables on the whole slasher story. It's an almost behind-the-scenes making of a special feature starring a new horror icon, detailing the setup as well as the execution. The film works off cliches we've come to know in this particular genre and makes them its own strengths. While for the most part Behind the Mask is entertaining, it does suffer from cheap production values. There is also not enough blood and gore to call it a true slasher film and the killing part, oddly enough, could have been built on much more. Even with all of that, it's a great buildup to a possible new franchise and I'd much rather watch more of this then another Saw or Paranormal Activity. 

The Good:

a smart comedy about the horror genre

The Bad:

poor pacing in some parts with a handful of really boring scenes

The Ugly:

cheap-ish production value that seems to be the cause of the lack of blood and gore

Overall: 7.1/10

Trailer: