Oct 8: The Faculty

"Students suspect that their teachers are aliens after bizarre occurrences."

Directed by: Robert Rodriguez, Rated: R, 104 minutes

Robert Rodriquez is one of my favorite directors working today. The stuff he churns out continues to be awesome (amid the Spy Kids and Shark Boys). However, he's one of those guys whose career you can look back upon and really love the hell out of it. From Desperado, to From Dusk Til Dawn, he started off with a bang. The Faculty, his follow-up to Dawn, is just as impressive, bringing the gore and guts we're familiar with as well as his usual humor and style. And while he didn't write the script, like most of his movies, The Faculty still feels like a genuine Rodriguez movie. And it is glorious.

Joss Whedon gets all the credit for making movies FOR fanboys, but Mr. Rodriguez here deserves the same amount of recognition. 

The Faculty tells the story about a bunch of kids who believe their high school teachers are aliens hiding in the bodies of school's staff. Elijah Wood plays Casey, a nerdy photographer who's the first to discover that something is wrong. As all horror movies go, no one believes him. So, he recruits the help of his fellow classmates (most of whom look down on him) to discover the secret behind what's happening. Throw in a massive cast that includes the likes of Josh Hartnett, Jordana Brewster, Salma Hayek, Famke Jensen, Bebe Neuwirth, Robert Patrick, and even Usher AND Jon Stewart, and The Faculty is simply too much fun to pass up. 

The Daily Show clearly saved Stewart from a career of this. I'll leave it up to you to decide if it was for the better or worse. 

While the film has its weaknesses (it falls prey to a script riddled with cliches) it still manages to poke fun at the fact, being more aware of its problem than anything else. It's a really genius idea, as the target demographic of the film (teenagers) would end up going back to school questioning their teachers and the setting is something we can all relate to. The dialogue shared between the characters is also rather realistic, but still suffers from the fact that nearly everyone playing a high school kid is played by a twenty something. The script also is full of references to tons of film favorites, from The Terminator franchise to Alien. But, it's in the suspense and effects that The Faculty shines. There are moments that pull you to the edge of your seat, making you worried about the characters, even if you don't care about them as much as you should. And of course, the acting is just good enough to get by, with each actor or actress having a blast with the film, knowing full well how campy and glorious it all really is. 

I'd pay a lot of money to see The Flying Spaghetti Monster emerging from the mouth of a T-1000. 

The Faculty is a great movie for Halloween, or even any occasion  It's part invasion flick, part zombie movie and it blends in a bit of the self-aware narration that made the horror movies of the 90s so good. It's not a classic by any means, but the idea is great, the execution is fun, and seeing all of the people in the movie together, well before their stardom, makes you appreciate it even more. The film also has an underlying sexuality to it that tailors to the hormones of horror fans, teasing you just enough to stay even more interested. It's also worth mentioning that the film is rated R, which elevates ANY horror movie into something great, even if it's terrible. The Faculty is on Netflix. Go and watch it. Or you can be lame and actually do your homework... but alien faculty sounds so much more fun. 

The Good:
clever script that has a lot of humor, a good amount of suspense, and a dash of sexy
The Better:
pretty good special effects for the small kind of movie it is and seeing what Rodriguez can make out of something that could have easily been dismissed
The Best:
the cast is so full of people you'll recognize and the bringing together of all these faces is just so cool

Overall: 7.7/10

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!

Sept 8: Sin City

"A film that explores the dark and miserable town, Basin City, and tells the story of three different people, all caught up in violent corruption."

Directed by: Frank Miller & Robert Rodriguez, Rated: R, 124 minutes

Sin City is a film with balls- big, violent, hilarious balls. It's like nothing you've seen before and is a festival of eye candy, with each scene looking sexier than the last. The film features one hell of a cast, all obviously having one hell of a fun time with it, and manages to turn something 'pulpy' into something that's worth every moment of your time. It's simply too cool to ignore, even if you're not a fan of a violent, over-the-top, good ol' fashioned orgy of awesome. 

And Jessica Alba plays a stripper. That is all. 

In the city of Basin City, criminals and prostitutes are at every corner. You survive by paying off the cops, being a badass yourself, or being a sexy dame a guy would kill for. Sin City focuses on three individuals in this ultra-violent "Gotham"- Dwight (Clive Owen), Hartigan (Bruce Willis), and Marv (Mickey Rourke). Dwight's a do-gooder who knows the streets as well as the women of Old Town (Basin City's version of a red-light district, but the "women of the night" are in charge, not the cops). Hartigan's a cop, one of the few good ones left in the city. He tracks down a girl kidnapped by a rapist and swears to do whatever it takes to keep her safe, even if it means losing his own life. Marv, a hulk of a man, is bullet-proof in his mission, seeking the murderer of a pretty whore that gave him too much attention. Throw in a constant narration from each of the men, detailing their lives with the most noir-esque lines you can imagine, and Sin City turns into the perfect combination of classic detective stories, pulp novels, and the grindhouse style of the 70s. 

The best part of the film is the visual style, being one of the most faithful comic adaptations (of any kind, actually) of all time. The pages of Frank Miller's graphic novels come to life on the screen, each scene literally ripped from the pages. Even the color palette, a heavy black and white with colors for accents, come straight out of the novels. Not only is this beautiful to watch, but the color scheme fits the stylized nature of the plot and turns something so violent and bloody into a work of art. Robert Rodriguez, best known for his Mariachi Trilogy and yes, Spy Kids, continues to show how incredible he is with a camera and creates his own unique masterpiece, giving so much depth and character to a 2D world that the genius Frank Miller created. 

Sin City is one of those films everyone needs to see, if just for the technical aspect alone. Yes, it's incredibly violent and and not for the weak of heart, but the gorgeous detail put into the film as well as the a group of characters so perfectly cast makes it easier to swallow. Sin City is an instant classic in its own genre and shows you that faithful adaptations do exist. While comic adaptations of every nature fly into theaters every summer, Sin City still remains the best, even after seven years and the continued promise of a sequel. As we all know, if you turn the right corner of Sin City, you can find anything. Here's hoping that anything is that sequel. 

Mickey Rourke was born to play Marv. 

The Good:

a great cast, with each actor fitting his/her role perfectly

The Better:

dialogue so rich with awesome, with every line reminiscent of something you'd read or hear in the 50s, when being cool was everywhere and a lit cigarette made you a badass

The Best:

a unique style that turns the film into something more than a run-of-the-mill action flick and proves that graphic novels can make a perfect leap to film

Overall: 9.5/10

Trailer:

If you're not sold on the film now, just take a look at the rest of the cast- Rosario Dawson, Michael Clarke Duncan (RIP), Elijah Wood, Carla Gugnio, Josh Hartett, Powers Boothe, Rutger Hauer, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Devon Aoki, Alexis Bledel, Jaime King, and Tommy Flanagan.  

Aug 1: 30 Days of Night

"After an Alaskan town is plunged into darkness for a month, it is attacked by a bloodthirsty gang of vampires."

Directed by: David Slade, Rated: R, 113 minutes

IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes

30 Days of Night is one of my favorite vampire movies. It's a vamper movie with balls that never shies away from the violence and gore one would associate with a fanger and never holds back. Sure, most of the people we're supposed to care about aren't the most developed and some, quite frankly, are annoying but, when everything looks so cool, it's a little easier to ignore. The film also stars the very underrated Josh Hartnett, who has seemingly fallen off of the face of the earth as of late, when in fact I feel he deserves to be the bigger star he was so close to becoming. He's a great leading actor and adds a lot to the film, as does the also underrated Melissa George (star of Triangle, one of my favorite movies that no one saw). 

Seriously, go find it. 

30 Days of Night follows the residents of Barrow, Alaska, a small town that is preparing for a month of darkness in one of their long and cold winters. A stranger (the glorious Ben Foster) arrives in Barrow and disrupts all forms of communication the village has to the mainland and larger cities. His sabotage comes just in time for as darkness falls upon the town, so does a mysterious "pack" of vampires (led by the creepy as f**k Danny Huston), who come out of hiding to feast and revel in the 30 days of darkness. The survivors, led by Eben Oleson (Hartnett) and his ex-wife Stella (George) must find a way to either get to safety, destroy their attackers, or hold up in whatever shelter they can for the remainder of the 30 days. 30 Days of Night has a very clever story and take on the vampire myth in a time when the bloodsuckers aren't looked upon as the greatest "monsters" in movies. The vampires are incredibly violent, speak in a seemingly ancient language that consists of clicking sounds and Latin-esque words, and use long sharp finger nails along with their mouths full of razor sharp teeth. These vamps are definitely not your sparkling, teen-angst ridden vampires you'd see in Seattle. Alaska breeds a different kind of horror. 

The vampires are like sharks, attacking the village like a school of fish. 

It's in the gore that makes 30 Days of Night fun to watch. While most of the violence is a little over-the-top, the film has its moments of gore that look all too realistic. Along with the blood, the film packs a hell of a lot of scares, even when you know something is coming. David Slade (who ironically went on to direct a Twilight movie) does a fine job at capturing the horror of a small town being infested with bloodsucking monsters and captures the panic in a very creepy way. There is one particular shot in the film where the camera looks down on the town in a bird's eye view and you lay witness to the citizens of Barrow running from the vampires through blood stained snow that sticks with you. 30 Days of Night is more unsettling than it is terrifying and the film has a very creepy vibe throughout. It's also worth mentioning that the idea behind the story is very clever, and the idea of being stuck in a month of darkness with a monster (known for mainly having one weakness- light) is disturbing to think about. 

Sunlight- Not Just for Tanning

While the film does have its flaws, I would still highly recommend 30 Days of Night. It certainly earns its R rating and grabs it by the throat and flails it around for the fun of it. It's dark, it's gritty, and has as much blood as a slaughterhouse. I do, however, have a problem with the movie's ending, as I found it incredibly rushed and a little ridiculous, but the buildup is still worth the time. The film is based off a graphic novel and I can only assume the source material goes into more depth explaining the conclusion. As a result, after watching the film, the graphic novel is now on my "must track down and read if I can" list. 30 Days of Night looks great, has a great cast (that never fully reaches its potential), and does the vampire justice by making it the blood-spilling, blood-drinking, havoc-wrecking monster it deserves to be. 

The Good:

so much blood packed into such a small movie and brutal look at the destruction a clan of violent vampires can wreck on a small Alaskan town

The Bad:

whenever I watch a Josh Hartnett movie I wonder why his career has fallen so much and while I don't think he's the world's greatest actor, being reminded of his lack of work is sad

The Ugly:

the claustrophobic feeling the film gives off, making you wonder what you would do if you were isolated in darkness, with absolutely no sign of rescue or hope

Overall: 7.2/10

Trailer:

Jan 2: Bunraku

"The story of a a young man who has spent his life searching for revenge only to find himself up against a bigger challenge than he originally bargained for."


   Bunraku is one hell of a mess, but still very entertaining. This movie is what would happen if Sin City, West Side Story, and Kung Fu Panda had a three-way and popped out a baby, with the romantic lighting of Legends of the Hidden Temple.
   The film follows the over-used idea where two strangers wander into town and team up to fight a common evil. This time, it's a "cowboy without a gun, and a samurai without a sword". 
   The fight scenes in Bunraku are very interesting, and at times well done, and at others, completely lackluster and boring. It's almost as though the fight choreographer had certain days off, and the rest of the crew put the scenes together. I do however have to give Josh Hartnett some credit for kicking quite the handful of ass. He almost channels Jack Sparrow with his  creepy and comical permanent drunkenness. 
   The samurai in the story is played by Gackt, a former Japanese boy band singer. His imdb page picture however, tells me he is some militant, punk-rock lesbian.

Why..

   One scene that stands out is where Hartnett fights through dozens of guards into a prison, all filmed in one take and using a set with multiple levels. It is very well done and if the rest of the film was shot just the same, the whole movie would be much better. Throw in Woody Harrleson, Demi Moore (who looks awful as some crime lord's "trophy wife") and the massive Ron Perlman (with dreads, or long dirty hair, or something) and you get a grab bag of a movie. I do not recommend watching this alone, at least not sober. 


Sight: The film has insanely elaborate sets with a style like that of old school musicals (but with blood!).
Sound: It has an underwhelming score, with hilarious, yet, very cheesy sound effects.
Skill: Not much acting is needed, just fists and feet do the talking. 
Script: There is an interesting voice-over narration but the script is severely lacking and the story is unoriginal and cliche.

Score: 5.5/10

Best Quote:
The Drifter: "That's pretty optimistic of you; worrying about your mustache when you should be worried about your head"