Film Junk » Movie Review

Good Hair Review

Goon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:35:00 +0000

Good Hair Directed by: Jeff Stilson Starring: Chris Rock, Nia Long, Ice-T, Al Sharpton, Maya Angelou, Eve, Tracie Thoms I have more rap albums than I have black friends on Facebook, and I don't have that many rap albums. There is and has always been a lot of black culture that I can only understand so much, but I never really thought about hair's role. It seems so simple - you grow it, you dye it, you straighten it, you comb it - hair just happens, and I had never bothered to think about dreadlocks or cornrows or even afros beyond the stylistic choice. With this in mind, I was confused about who Good Hair is targeted to. Is it an expose of controversial issues to spur change within the black community, or is it just opening the door into a world someone like me knows nothing about? The premise of this documentary involves Chris Rock investigating a question from his daughter: "Why don't I have good (read: Farrah Fawcett-ish, flowing, not nappy) hair?". This leads him on a Michael Moore-ish journey through the $9 billion black hair industry, from relaxers to weaves to the doc's stability device: a ridiculous hair expo stage event in Atlanta that puts pageantry and pomp over pure skill. A better reference than Moore may be Chris Bell's 2008 steroid culture documentary Bigger Stronger Faster*, where the issues of vanity are also relevant beyond its specific subjects. While Stilson's film doesn't have (or need) the same personal punch, the light-hearted yet serious tone and editing style will seem familiar. Chris Rock as the catalyst for discovery makes for a very entertaining and amusing watch. Rock's quips and reactions serve as a gateway for pasty white Canadians like me who without a guide may have no idea what the fuck they're watching, and could not fathom why people would subject themselves to the activities involved in achieving "good hair". There is first an examination of "relaxers", which turns nappy hair into straight, silky, luxurious locks. It is shocking to watch how the chemicals in these products can damage and burn, aptly demonstrated by the visual of an aluminum can being stripped by a relaxer chemical to the point where it is completely clear. A longer segment about weaves takes Rock to India, investigating the process in which young Indian girls shave their heads ritualistically and send their mops back overseas to retail for hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. These segments also explore and explain how spending so much on ones coiffure can lead to distance in a relationship - the ladies aren't going to let their fellas mess up their thousand dollar 'do. It also obviously causes major fears of rain and swimming. An examination of the industry behind both shows how much money black people, especially women, are shelling out to businesses that are ironically mostly not black owned. In total, these scenes raise questions of whether or not they should or even want to be more involved in serving their own community through such methods. While one might look down on some of these people for shelling out large percentages of their paycheck every month on goop and sorta-wigs, watching the sole white hairdresser of the extravagant hair show go in for Botox treatment certainly makes it clear that vanity knows no boundaries of race or ridiculousness, and that in the end a lot of this may be uniquely psychological rather than strictly cultural. This especially becomes clear through the numerous talking head bits that pepper throughout the film from noted entertainers and figures from Ice-T to Maya Angelou, who talk of their first and/or continuing tales of weaves and relaxers. Al Sharpton for example tells about James Brown getting him to relax his hair to be more politically affable, and the payoff photograph is amusing and makes his point. A group of young girls talk about relaxing their hair not just for their own vanity, but because of the perceptions they would receive in their office had they grown their hair out naturally. You can't help but feel bad for the one girl of the group with a cute short afro as she listens to her friends explain yet another body issue she will have to contend with. It is unfortunate that Rock and Stilson aren't able to push more of their celebrity friends to get on the couch and similarly open up. Most of the talking head stories simply revolve around how, and not so much WHY they do this to their heads. When Rock wants to talk about any media manipulation leading these people to believe they don't have good hair, it doesn't resonate as well as it could. The case is clearly made that a number of these things are controversial if not clearly fucked up, but for the few fingers Rock points outside the black community, he extends others pointing back within. I'm not sure if there was an activist element intended when they first set out on this venture, but on the psychological level there was much left to be explored. Despite near universal critical acclaim, on IMDB and Flixster I've seen a lot more pushback against the film. I've seen some complaints from people mad at Rock taking pokes at weaves and relaxers at all, and others who believe Rock didn't take enough of a stand. I see claims that Stilson and Rock needed to spend time with black women who DO have naturally straight hair, and should show numerous people with "bad hair" of other races. I believe those complaints are misguided and could have turned the whole thing into an unfocused mess, instead of what it is - a very funny picture that is insightful, interesting and endlessly entertaining, but missing a definitive answer to its main question. -- Goon

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

The Men Who Stare At Goats Review

Sean — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:14:02 +0000

The Men Who Stare At Goats Directed by: Grant Heslov Written by: Peter Straughan (screenplay), Jon Ronson (book) Starring: George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Spacey, Jeff Bridges Since the dawn of modern warfare, people have fantasized about the concept of super soldiers, enhanced human beings that could defend their homeland and give them the edge over their enemies. At this point, we're not just talking about fictional characters like Captain America, either; today's soldiers really are trained to push their body beyond its physical and mental limits, and outfitted with bleeding edge technological advancements. Military interests drive scientific research like few other fields, leading to all kinds of wacky pills and biological experiments. But would it surprise you to learn that U.S. military has delved into even stranger realms in the past, and may still be doing so today? In his 2004 book, The Men Who Stare At Goats, Welsh journalist Jon Ronson reveals the eye-opening story of a top secret program that had been set up in the 1980s to research applications of paranormal and spiritual techniques in the military. Based on interviews with actual personnel involved, he relays tales of officers who attempted to train themselves to walk through walls, read minds, and even kill living creatures just by staring at them. Apparently some of them actually succeeded. While there may be some debate over just how true it all is, the scary thing is that it's not hard to believe certain world leaders would turn to wacky, unproven theories in their time of need. It's definitely another great example of how reality is quite often stranger than fiction, and of course, someone eventually saw the potential for a pretty funny movie in all of it. The project ended up attracting some serious A-list talent in the form of George Clooney and Ewan McGregor, but could it hold up on screen in the hands of a relatively inexperienced director? The movie adaptation of The Men Who Stare At Goats constructs a fictional storyline that finds a journalist named Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) stumbling into the middle of a psychic soldier's top secret mission in Iraq. After he meets Lyn Cassady (George Clooney) at his hotel, he convinces him to bring him along into the desert. Along the way, he learns about the history of the First Earth Battalion (told largely through shaggy-haired flashbacks), a program headed up by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges), a Vietnam vet turned New Age hippie. As things go terribly awry during their mission, however, Wilton starts to wonder if Cassady really is a Jedi Warrior with paranormal abilities or if he's just plain crazy. As you might imagine, a large part of this movie is quite simply The George Clooney Show. Clooney hams it up just as much here as he has in such movies as The Coen Brothers' O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Burn After Reading. If you don't like comedy Clooney, you probably won't like this movie, that's not to say that he isn't required to bring a little bit of depth to the character as well. Personally, I can't get enough of his wacky facial expressions and fast-talking ways. Speaking of Coen Brothers films, here Jeff Bridges is probably the closest he's come to reprising his now legendary role as The Dude from The Big Lebowski. His casting as Bill Django was spot on, although I suppose a little bit predictable as well. There are definitely some straight-up stoner comedy moments in the film, and Bridges nails them all. Ewan McGregor makes the perfect wide-eyed reporter, while Kevin Spacey plays the would-be villain of the piece, a fellow First Earth Battalion trainee named Larry Hooper who is jealous of Cassady's gift for all things mental. The Men Who Stare At Goats delivers a good mix of broad laughs along with some dry British humour, and it truly is a movie that draws alternating waves of laughter from two different sections of the audience. The latter half of the film tries to get a little more serious by introducing doubt into the equation, and eventually pulls out a strange last-minute subplot about freeing some prisoners. Although it loses a bit of steam somewhere in the middle, it manages to go out on a fairly high note. I guess one of the problems with a fictional adaptation of a non-fiction book is that sometimes you have to shoehorn characters into a convenient story arc in order to make it work. Screenwriter Peter Straughan previously adapted Toby Young's hilarious memoir How to Lose Friends & Alienate People with much less success, but here he does a good job of creating a loose narrative while also incorporating many memorable and funny elements from the book. (Although I haven't read the book, I've seen part of the accompanying documentary and I was surprised by how many things were taken directly from it.) He also plays it with just the right level of farce, leaving it somewhat open-ended as to whether or not some of the First Earth Battalion techniques really are possible. Grant Heslov, a long-time actor turned producer and now director, co-wrote and produced George Clooney's Oscar-nominated Good Night, and Good Luck. He also previously directed some episodes of Soderbergh's Unscripted series for HBO (the movie also shares a similar incredulous tone with Steven Soderbergh's The Informant) but other than that, his only feature-length directorial credit was an original indie comedy called Par 6. Heslov brings an artful eye to what would otherwise be just a goofy comedy, along with brilliant director of photography Robert Elswit (There Will Be Blood, Michael Clayton, Syriana). The Men Who Stare At Goats may not the best movie of the year, nor the funniest, but it is a solid comedy full of thoroughly entertaining performances and just enough mystique to keep you thinking about it after the fact. Fans of the book may balk at a few of the fictional fabrications, but if you enjoy quirky comedies and oddball true stories, you won't regret seeing this flick. Just remember, at the heart of it all is a cold, hard truth: people will believe just about anything. Whether that's good or bad is up to you to decide. -- Sean

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

A Serious Man Review

Goon — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:48:31 +0000

A Serious Man Written and Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed, Aaron Wolff In an age of high profile franchise blockbusters, months in advance it becomes very apparent via very expensive marketing campaigns what the year's event films are going to be. For me though, it is instead a handful of directors' names that predetermine who is getting my money and attention. It should be obvious by the fact that I'd even write this that the Coen Brothers are on this list, and it's wonderful to have such a list when it means you can walk into one of their films relatively cold. It also brings an entirely different set of expectations than you'd give something that has spent months doing everything it can to impress you. My expectations from the Coens have become numerous -- I now demand a higher level of quality. I look forward to a certain kind of dialogue, where side characters repeat each others' names with condescending derision and yes, may even have catchphrases. They are realistic but ridiculous, lovable but also worthy of being shit upon by each other at any given moment for my entertainment. I expect that the plot will have moments where doing the right thing is punished worse than doing something underhanded. And of course, if Roger Deakins is on board, it will look fantastic. The Coens tick off all these marks with ease here, in a film I would argue is a Coen film for Coen fanboys. Do the Coens have a formula? Sort of, but to use a catchphrase from A Serious Man, they're also Fuckers. This is their true trademark, and I am happy to say I was fucked with more than enough times in A Serious Man to get more than I expected. A Serious Man takes place in the late '60s (when the Coens would have been coming of age), specifically within a suburban Jewish community. A professor named Larry Gopnik (played brilliantly in a reactive performance by Michael Stuhlbarg, who I had never seen in anything else before) faces a number of mundane stresses: relationship issues, a son about to go through his bar mitzvah, apprehension over getting tenure, a property line issue, an unhappy student, an overdue record club bill, and a brother going through a personal (and grossly physical) crisis. Gopnik tries to cope with these issues by consulting a progressively aged triad of rabbis who may or may not be doing him many favors. While this may seem dry, the Coens' sense of character and dialogue make A Serious Man very darkly funny. It is also extremely bleak though, perhaps devastating for some, as it basically retells the book of Job through the Coens' twisted lenses, shitting all over Gopnik at every opportunity. This is a screwball tragedy, made all the worse by unleashing this hell upon a very sympathetic character. The religious framing keeps the film moving along at a strong pace. Gopnik's Dante Hicks-ish cry of "I didn't do anything!" summarizes much of his plight as he tries to find an answer about what he can do for others - or for God so he will stop the onslaught. By the end, the point is made pretty clear: God can do whatever he wants. He has the power in the relationship, you don't. In dealing with one specific problem he is encouraged to "accept the mystery", and his failure to do so may be his undoing. His search leads him to a series of rabbis; one (fantastically hinted at by the wonderful shot which cuts "Rabbi" off his nameplate) young and hard to take seriously, another who spins detailed yarns that don't really point to anywhere, and one which is too busy for his most needy follower. The story the second rabbi tells may be my favorite moment of the entire film; its specific choice of soundtrack and the way it is told reminded me very much of how Quentin Tarantino has his characters tell stories. Like most Coen movies, there is quite a bit that comes across as silly, and it is clearly by design. Many have often said the Coens take too much glee in the horrors their characters go through, and none of them would change their mind after seeing A Serious Man. Some characters are not much more than caricatures, possibly even less, who exist to annoy and make the protagonist's life all the more worth letting go of. But others take these restrictions and just run with them. Fred Melamed is particularly great as Sy, who is deceptively casual in his dealings with Gopnik's wife. Also good is Aaron Wolff, Gopnik's son, who has his own mundane problems involving twenty dollars, a radio, and F-Troop. Richard Kind is utterly pitiable as Larry's brother, a mathematical genius who has even less to be happy about in life. This ensemble cast may overall be less recognizable than any of the Coens' casts to date. Fyvesh Finkel may be the most well known actor, who appears in a strange preamble to the film as a possible ghost (the nature of whom is still a mystery even through the credits). The point of this initial scene isn't crystal clear to me, but until proven wrong I prefer to think it suggests a curse has been following Gopnik's family, which would now include his son, for generations. Roger Deakins' photography work is a treat once again, subtle compared to some of his recent work because most of A Serious Man is happening inside and just outside of very ordinary track houses. He still manages to capture great shots including an elderly rabbi's study and a view from the ceiling of the Jewish temple. It made me want to rewatch Doubt and look if he is repurposing any of his ideas from that film. I don't know if A Serious Man is for everyone, but for my tastes it is a perfect film. I immediately knew after seeing it that it was my favorite film of the year to date -- even more so after a second viewing. The only thing I don't like about A Serious Man is that it has to move so many of my other favorite Coen films down a notch in my overall ranking of their filmography. The Fuckers. - Goon

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Paranormal Activity Review

Sean — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:51:02 +0000

Paranormal Activity Written and Directed by: Oren Peli Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Mark Fredrichs Every couple of years, a big independent film success story comes along to remind people that massive budgets and bankable stars are not required to make a movie that strikes a chord with the general public. Earlier this year we already had Neill Blomkamp's District 9, which was independent and low budget in comparison just about every other summer blockbuster out there. Oren Peli's Paranormal Activity, however, is in another class entirely. Reportedly shot for the ridiculously cheap price tag of just $11,000 (less than The Blair Witch Project) back in 2006, the movie was picked up by Dreamworks in the wake of a new surge in handheld horror movies like REC and Cloverfield. However, after Paramount acquired Dreamworks, it simply sat on a shelf for a couple of years. At one point, it looked like the studio was going to try and set up a remake of the film instead, but then this September they suddenly decided that they had nothing to lose by releasing it a few theatres to see if audiences would respond. And they did. Buoyed by a unique marketing campaign that allowed audiences to cast votes online to bring the movie to their city, Paranormal Activity continued to build positive buzz until it has finally reached a wide release going head to head with Saw VI. So, is it really one of the scariest movies of all time? The concept seems ridiculously simple, and plenty of independent filmmakers out there are probably kicking themselves for not thinking of it first. A young couple move into a house together, and starting hearing strange noises at night while they sleep. Katie believes that she has been haunted since she was a young girl, but her boyfriend Micah doesn't really believe it. In order to get to the bottom of the occurrences, he buys a video camera and sets it up to record at night while they sleep. As the intensity of the so-called "hauntings" escalate, Katie gets more and more terrified, while Micah becomes hostile and stand off-ish. All of the madness is captured on camera for us to see. Comparisons to The Blair Witch Project abound and are completely warranted, but nowadays that may be seen as a bit of a negative thing. People seem to think that The Blair Witch Project was hyped undeservingly, but regardless of how you feel about that movie, Paranormal Activity is the real deal. I think it will have a much easier time connecting with people since the victims are helpless in their own homes. It's a classic haunted house scenario that people can relate to, and it plays out with a great degree of realism. There's also not much "shaky cam" to worry about since most of the scary stuff happens while the camera is firmly resting on a tripod in the corner of their bedroom. If you feel sick to your stomach during Paranormal Activity, it will be because you are genuinely frightened, not because of motion sickness. The pacing is near perfect, as things start off relatively harmless and almost laughably inconsequential, but then build toward something much more dangerous and disturbing. In fact, some people may find the end of the film almost a little too explicit in what it shows, but I think it will satisfy mainstream viewers who felt that The Blair Witch Project didn't actually show anything at all. The movie's few stumbling points are when it tries to show something a little too obvious (the ouija board scene) or when it tries to insert a little bit of a back story (Micah's internet search that turns up a previous victim with similar circumstances). Much like The Blair Witch Project, however, Paranormal Activity is at its most effective when it is merely hinting at possibilities that make your imagination run wild. It truly is all about what isn't shown on screen rather than what is. There's a terrifying sense of dread that sets in every time night rolls around. At the heart of this movie is the relationship between Katie and Micah, which provides two opposing perspectives on the strange phenomenon happening around them. Some people have complained about the believability of Micah's reactions in particular, where he seemingly remains unconvinced after witnessing some pretty crazy stuff. I agree that in places this is a bit of a stretch, but I think his macho attitude is not as uncommon as you think (indeed, the nervous laughter and scoffing of certain "tough guys" in the theatre around me only prove the point). The acting ability of unknown stars Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat does falter slightly here and there, but the conflict within their relationship still felt convincing to me. In the end, I have to say that Paranormal Activity is indeed worthy of most of the hype surrounding it. This is a clever, original and well-executed film that will chill you to the core, assuming you are willing to give it a chance. Although I haven't seen Saw VI (and probably won't), there's no question in my mind that this is the horror flick to see this Halloween. Just be warned -- you may not be able to sleep with the lights off again for quite some time. -- Sean

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

The Invention of Lying Review

Goon — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:27:22 +0000

The Invention of Lying Written and Directed by: Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson Starring: Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, Rob Lowe, Louis CK, Jonah Hill You have to wonder what kind of person has it within them these days to conceive of a fantasy-based comedy and believe in it enough to see it through. Movies like this simply haven't been very good or funny lately, and despite a promising trailer, The Invention of Lying seemed destined to contain a zillion unexplainable and/or nonsensical holes, and would at best resemble a mediocre SNL skit stretched to 90 minutes. Most people opined that it looked like another take on Jim Carrey's Liar Liar. But of all things I worried that the brilliant creator of The Office, Ricky Gervais, would turn out a high concept comedy as torturous to sit through as Year One or Click. While it turns out that while some of these fears were well-founded, I'm also pleased to say that I was wrong to underestimate Gervais when he has more to deliver than just laughs. Like many other comedies with outlandish premises, this film has a tough challenge of finding a balance between fleshing out the world with effective satire while at the same time delivering believable characters and an actual story. Groundhog Day succeeds by being somewhat of a "time travel" movie, with real people who are merely living each day anew. Idiocracy falters (although I've come to like it a lot more on rewatches) by having so much to say about an idiotic future that it has no time to breathe, and thus its main cast of characters are uninteresting, and the supporting players are actually overplaying their part to a cartoonish end that ironically undermines the premise for the sake of humor. The Invention of Lying lies (ugh, no pun intended) somewhere in the middle, meaning we end up with a likable, occasionally charming movie with something to say that at the same time is missing several opportunities for comedic exploration that makes the previously mentioned films so unique. Ricky Gervais plays Mark Bellison, a screenwriter at a movie studio that makes blockbuster films of people reading historical documents about such things as the invention of the automobile. Bellison has very little luck socially, beaten down so much by his difficult job of making the Black Plague interesting enough for the screen, and by his mean-spirited co-workers (including Rob Lowe, tapping back into his Wayne's World-style villainy) that he is about to lose his apartment. At just the right moment, he seizes upon an opportunity to create the world's first lie. Amazed by his accomplishment, he immediately uses his gift for both good and evil: taking advantage of casinos, telling people what they need to hear to survive another day, and advancing his own love life. Eventually this leads to religion, where Gervais, an outspoken atheist, definitely runs with the ball and for a solid chunk of the film creates a modern day version of The Life of Brian, casting himself as the Messiah. Much has been made of this segment of the film, and while some may certainly be offended, overall Gervais' handling smartly shows how the invention of religion both immediately brings the best and worst out of people. Overall Bellison's discovery of lying posits an argument that it's a very good thing that lying exists -- for the sake of better art, for a more polite and compassionate society, and for the sake of developing relationships and falling in love. Yuck. It's that latter 4-letter word that unfortunately derails a good chunk of this film, as Gervais has no bones about going for some sap, and about framing this world around a rom-com story. While his first emotional scene is surprisingly well executed, most others overshadow some of his ideas, and the rom-com framing throws a wrench into the suspension of disbelief. For one, it should be noted that people in this world do not merely tell the truth at all times; they also happen to blurt out what they are thinking at random. It's done for the sake of humor, and while it often works, the things they reveal should derail everything and work counter to their intentions. Jennifer Garner's love interest character in particular, though not badly performed, brings out this flaw in the film most often. Constantly attacking Gervais for his appearance, it is beyond reason why Gervais would keep persuing her, calling her a good person and his best friend despite her obviously being so openly shallow. I often wondered if Gervais' character was actually lying when he would praise her, but it becomes clear he's serious. I suppose one could argue Gervais is taking digs at himself; that in an honest world only desperate people would be with him; that he would have to get used to it and accept it. It's still tough to swallow as you watch. So while I praise Gervais for wanting to ground everything in character, Garner's character remains as clueless as anyone in the lie free world that it's hard to get behind them as a couple. Her character only decides to love him because the script needs it to. It's unfortunate that these scenes fail so hard, because it means that more of this world is not properly explored. Gervais doesn't really lay a glove on politics, war, how the world is not any more or less advanced than it currently is, or how its history could basically be the same. It means stabs at corporate truth in advertising ("Coke. It's very famous.") don't get mined more often, and we don't get the seemingly promised payoffs of a world that suddenly discovers religion and fictional storytelling. I don't know if this is a spoiler, but the world never actually discovers lying for itself, so we don't see the chaos and panic that could ensue in a world with deceit suddenly thrust upon them. All of what I've said to date is mostly ignoring something very important: is this comedy funny? The answer is yes. It's funny enough, not necessarily "ha-ha" funny or the awkward situation funny we often get from Gervais, but it does take much better advantage of his self-deprecating charm than Ghost Town did, and more often than not, it uses its endless supply of star cameos at least as well as the early Muppet movies did. Maybe that's a backhanded compliment to some, but I think Gervais would appreciate it. While some such as Tiny Fey and Christopher Guest are wasted and inconsequential additions, others (including Philip Seymour Hoffman, Stephen Merchant, Martin Starr, Ed Norton, and Jason Bateman) get just enough to do in their few moments on screen to justify stunt casting in favour of a no name. Louis CK, Rob Lowe and Jonah Hill are used well enough in their supporting roles. Much like typical road movies, and like in Idiocracy, a movie with a strange premise can benefit from faces you know getting a few shots in and prevent you from growing weary of the premise. It doesn't always work, but Gervais does well to recruit so many of his many friends and fans. The Invention of Lying will disappoint about as many as elates, but overall I think it's safe to say most people will come out of Gervais and Robinson's co-directed film somewhere just above or below the Mendoza Line, decrying the sap and lauding specific moments and ideas. This review may come across as mostly negative, however the film's strength is in the actual satire, and I wouldn't want to spoil much. It's hard to say if it would benefit from rewatch or not, but I know I'm willing to give it the chance on DVD, if only to see the deleted scenes that promise a prehistoric man played by Karl Pilkington. Far from a home run, The Invention of Lying is still ambitious, worth exploring, and enjoyable in spite of its flaws. I didn't laugh even a tenth as much as I did at say, The Hangover, but I guarantee I've already thought about it more often. -- Goon

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Zombieland Review

Sean — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:44:00 +0000

Zombieland Directed by: Ruben Fleischer Written by: Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick Starring: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin, Amber Heard I'm not sure what it is about rotting corpses coming back to life and feasting on human flesh that has managed to strike a chord with so many people over the years, but make no mistake: the word "zombie" is now a brand name, ready to be slapped onto any product and sold to a fanbase with an insatiable appetite for the undead. Maybe it is just that people can relate to the concept of mindless drones shuffling aimlessly through their sad lives, or viral infection in a savage, unforgiving world where only the strong survive. Then there's the more likely explanation for the appeal, which is the fact that zombies are generally slow-moving and dumb, making them easy targets for decapitation and death from a variety of weapons. Either way, at this point, a new zombie movie is pretty much guaranteed to attract a very dedicated, albeit relatively small, cult following. But could zombies ever truly go mainstream? Director Ruben Fleischer's very first feature film, Zombieland, has taken perhaps the best stab at creating a mass market zombie outbreak to date. With a strong comedic slant, some big name stars, and a slick sense of style, it's more escapist fantasy than terrifying dystopia, and it's easily the funniest zombie flick since Shaun of the Dead. Jesse Eisenberg plays a shy, awkward college student who has managed to survive the zombie plague on his own thus far through strict adherence to a set of personal rules (perhaps partially inspired by Max Brooks' The Zombie Survival Guide). Early on, these rules are explained through some very tongue-in-cheek narration with on-screen captions, setting up a wacky, self-referential tone that continues throughout the film. Soon he meets up with Woody Harrelson's character, a no-nonsense redneck from Florida who is cutting a bloody swath across the United States in search of a Twinkie. Rather than reveal their real names to each other, they simply refer to each other by their hometowns: Columbus (Eisenberg) and Tallahassee (Harrelson). Along the way, they meet up with two sisters (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin) who have trust issues, but they'll all have to learn to work together if they want to live to see another day. The movie never really explains much about the origins of the zombies except to say that it was a human plague that evolved from mad cow disease. In fact, it doesn't ever concern itself with the big picture at all, and simply focuses on these four characters and their road trip, with occasional flashbacks to their previous lives. Considering that the movie is primarily a comedy that plays on the familiarity of the genre's conventions, this approach works fairly well. Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg make for a great comedic team, with the vast majority of the film's laughs resulting from their chemistry. Eisenberg is sure to draw even more Michael Cera comparisons with his nervous, neurotic demeanor, but I think he is able to sell the budding romance better than Cera could. Emma Stone (Superbad) and Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine) are decent as well, but I think a lot of credit must go to the script by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, whose biggest shared credit to date is the brilliant reality series The Joe Schmo Show. The movie has some great dialogue and snappy one-liners, and while it's peppered with some pop culture references here and there, it's not overly indulgent in that department. It's also impossible not to mention one particularly great cameo in the film, but since most people have managed to keep it a secret thus far, I won't spoil it here either. All I will say is that it's a make or break moment that could have gone horribly awry with the wrong actor or the wrong tone, but it was an absolute slam dunk for me. In a lot of ways it's hard to believe that this is Ruben Fleischer's first movie. He maintains a solid sense of style without being overly flashy. He has some fun with extreme slow-mo, and dreams up a number of creative kills and some slick action sequences while also tipping his hat to westerns as well. There are also some inspired musical choices including an opening credit sequence set to Metallica's "For Whom The Bell Tolls". Zombieland is not completely flawless, but most of its flaws are pretty easy to forgive. One of the minor issues is that there is very little in the way of plot to drive things forward, leading to the need for a final climax to be manufactured out of stupid, illogical decisions. There also isn't all that much in the way of actual horror; although it does have a few jump scares and some suspenseful moments, it's not quite as balanced as Shaun of the Dead. For most people, the success of Zombieland will depend entirely on how much they laugh. I wouldn't call this the funniest movie of the year, but it's certainly more hit than miss, where even the misses are still tolerable. Overall, it's a thoroughly entertaining ride that manages to offer a fresh take on a genre that has been getting pretty stale and overcrowded -- and that's saying something. Zombieland is a crowd pleaser that deserves all the praise it has been getting, and one that reaches far beyond the realm of hardcore horror fanatics. -- Sean

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

The Complete Monterey Pop Blu Ray Review

Jay C. — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:55:10 +0000

I’ll just come clean right off the top here and admit that this was my first time watching D.A. Pennebaker’s Monterey Pop and although it’s definitely a great film, it’s probably my least favourite of the three big music festival documentaries to come out of the late sixties/early seventies. There’s something about the grandiose cluster-fuck nature of Woodstock that appealed to me — along with the split screens of course — and Gimme Shelter’s cynicism was the perfect end to the short lived era of ‘Peace and Love’. I think the thing that drops Monterey Pop down a notch or two is the fact that it’s too devoted to the performances; an accusation that is obviously a personal one, as I would imagine most people watching this film are hoping for exactly that. Perosnally, I’m more interested in the logistics of the festival and the people who attend it, and although the film does touch upon this, it’s so secondary that it takes up a fraction of the already short 79 minute running time. Monterey Pop does boast some now classic performances that aren’t short in theatrics. There’s the iconic image of Jimi Hendrix lighting his guitar ablaze on stage and of course, Pete Townshend destroying his Gibson as the Who annhialate the unsuspecting audiences ear drums, sending chunks of instruments hurdling towards the crowd. It all adds up to a sold concert film that just doesn’t do much to subvert or transcend the subject matter, but definitely sets the groundwork for others to build upon. Criterion has given Monterey Pop the full HD treatment with a faithful transfer, remastered Dolby Digital and DTS-HD Master audio and a load of supplemental materials. Fans of Criterion’s past releases will be pleased to hear that the D.A. Pennebaker supervised digital transfer retains its filmic qualities with a fine sheen of grain and no unnecessary artificial digital enhancements. Really a great package overall. Of course, if you end up picking up the The Complete Monterey Pop Festival box set, you’ll also get an additional blu ray disc including the short films ‘Jimi Plays Monterey’ and ‘Shake! Otis at Monterey’, both of which have also been remastered in HD. This is a must have for documentary fans and classic rock aficionados.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Surrogates Review

Sean — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:58:53 +0000

Surrogates Directed by: Jonathan Mostow Written by: Michael Ferris and John Brancato (screenplay), Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele (graphic novel) Starring: Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, James Cromwell, Rosamund Pike, Ving Rhames, Boris Kodjoe It's been a pretty solid year for science-fiction films thus far, with movies like Moon, District 9 and Watchmen all raising the bar for thoughtful futuristic tales on the big screen in one way or another. While this is great news for moviegoers, it's unfortunate for a filmmaker who is trying to put together a big budget action/sci-fi flick later in the year that has any hope of measuring up. Case in point: Surrogates director Jonathan Mostow, who finds himself faced with the unenviable task of following all of the aforementioned films, in addition to a whole summer's worth of massive special effects blockbusters. On the one hand, he has the advantage of Mr. Bruce Willis in the lead role, and an intriguing concept based on a graphic novel by Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele. On the other hand, he's cursed with a script by the writers of Catwoman and Terminator Salvation, and a questionable supporting cast. Can Surrogates possibly keep the sci-fi streak alive? This movie asks us to imagine a world where the majority of the population has given up face-to-face interaction with their fellow humans, and instead chosen to hide behind realistic-looking, thought-controlled robots known as "surrogates", which carry out their daily routines for them. Although surrogates were originally created to allow disabled people to lead normal lives, they eventually go mainstream. A select few choose to "keep it real", however, avoiding surrogacy on the basis of moral grounds, with some even banding together as a cult-like organization to try and put a stop to it once and for all. Things get a bit sticky when a suspected terrorist group creates a weapon that can not only disable a surrogate, but also kill its operator. Bruce Willis plays an FBI agent who is investigating the series of murders, but when his own surrogate is targeted by the killers, he finds himself forced to continue the investigation in his own skin, despite all the risks. In an opening sequence reminiscent of District 9, Mostow mixes fake news footage and interviews in order to establish the invention of surrogates and their role in the world. Early on, I was impressed by the level of believability that they lend to the premise. A lot of the applications of the surrogates seem perfectly reasonable, whether it's working from home, changing your physical appearance on a whim, or going to war without human casualties, these all seem like precisely the kind of things we would eventually use robots for. The specifics of how the surrogates actually work also make sense for the most part; you put on goggles and a helmet and lie back in a chair in order to control it, but when you step away to eat or take a bathroom break, your surrogate gets put on pause. The process is remarkably similar to how many of us currently sit in front of the computer all day long... is your mind blown yet? Despite the interesting backdrop, however, the movie is ultimately not so concerned with all the complex ways that this technology might change society, and what little commentary it does offer up is stale and predictable. Bruce Willis' wife (played by Rosamund Pike) is addicted to her surrogate and ashamed of her real body. He claims they don't see each other enough, but she insists that they're always together while operating their surrogates. "It's not the same," he says. It turns out that the reason she is so withdrawn is because their son died a few years back (because her character really needed that extra motivation). To make the situation even more cliched, she also engages in some sort of weird futuristic drug that involves shocking your surrogate in order to get high. Not only does this look remarkably lame, but apparently the act is referred to as "jackin'". Sadly, I found myself flashing back to Neveldine and Taylor's Gamer quite a bit during this film, which is not a good thing. Every single real human in the movie is either fat, ugly or decrepit (or all of the above), and while I can understand letting your real body go when you have a surrogate to rely on, surely there must be a few average-looking people in the mix? With the director of U-571 and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines at the helm, you would think there would at least be some decent action scenes to look forward to. The truth is, the majority of the film is a high-tech murder mystery in the vein of I, Robot. There are really only two major action sequences in the film, and while the first one is entertaining enough, the second is a superhuman car-hopping chase that was beaten to the punch by G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. The action scenes were also plagued by choppy editing, making everything feel oddly disconnected. Visually the movie is a bit gaudy, but some of the effects were well executed. For once someone has found a good use for the creepy digital anti-aging technology that we've seen in such movies as X-Men: The Last Stand. The surrogates themselves look shiny and rubbery, and when combined with cold, robotic performances from the supporting cast, they definitely have an eerie look that is just slightly off from regular humans. Bruce Willis shows moments of being able to hold the movie together with his gruff resolve and a couple of ridiculous one-liners but it ultimately falls apart because it just takes itself too seriously. The dramatic elements are so cliched and laughable, and on top of that, the movie lays claim to perhaps the most contrived suspense-generating twist ever. All I'll say is that the one thing that standing between life and death for millions of people was the press of a Shift button. It's pretty amazing. At an 88-minute running time, Surrogates is short and breezy, but considering all the potential that was there, I would have much rather seen them take an extra half-hour to add some depth (or more action). Hardcore sci-fi geeks will probably be willing to forgive a lot of the artifice in this movie just to explore some of the ideas, and I have to admit that it does spark some cool discussions about what the future may hold. Still, beyond this fascinating future world, the characters and the plot are just so tired, and the action is not nearly exciting enough to offset all the eye rolling. I know I've been spoiled by movies like District 9 recently, but what can I say? I'd rather be jackin'. -- Sean

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

TIFF Review: Up in the Air

Sean — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:55:04 +0000

Up in the Air Directed by: Jason Reitman Written by: Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner (screenplay), Walter Kim (novel) Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Jason Bateman, Anna Kendrick, Danny McBride Being the son of Ivan Reitman may have its advantages, but let's be honest here: Jason Reitman has more than proven himself to be a gifted director in his own right with his first two critically-acclaimed films, Thank You for Smoking and Juno. He's following in his father's comedic footsteps, but choosing edgier material and smarter scripts, and is now well on his way to becoming one of those directors that A-list actors will basically drop everything to work with. Still, there are some people out there who believe that the success of his movies have been more due to the writing and the acting than his direction, and while I don't necessarily agree, I am pretty sure that his third film, Up in the Air, will change that impression considerably. Sure, the movie is based on a book by Walter Kim and stars George Clooney, but the subject matter is such that it requires a true emotional investment in the characters and just the right tone to work. When all is said and done, this could be the movie that actually wins Jason Reitman an Academy Award. Ryan Bingham is a 35 year old man who works as a "termination engineer" -- ie. an outside consultant who is hired by other companies to fire their employees. He prides himself on his ability to live independently and without attachment, is able to talk his way out of any situation, and enjoys constantly being on the go. Sometimes he does speaking engagements where he explains the philosophy behind his carefree lifestyle. His jetsetting lifestyle is threatened, however, when a young go-getter at his company develops a computer system to handle layoffs and firings via webcam. Not only does this mean he may be permanently grounded, but it also means he may not be able to see the woman he recently met at an airport with whom he may or may not be falling in love. This simply will not do. Up in the Air is perhaps George Clooney's most defining role to date: he's smooth, self-assured and charismatic, but as time goes on we start to see the cracks in his armor. I seriously doubt that anyone else could have played Ryan Bingham with quite the same level of coolness and sensitivity. As much as he is selfish and smug, he is also fighting to maintain just a little bit of humanity in the workplace. Vera Farmiga (Orphan, The Departed) also turns in quite the impressive performance as Alex, Ryan's sexy and fun-loving counterpart "with a vagina"; she has great chemistry with Clooney which makes for plenty of playful verbal sparring. Meanwhile, Anna Kendrick, who I thought was great in Rocket Science, is dead on casting for Natalie, the smarmy yet naive young computer whiz who is at odds with Ryan's ability to do his job properly. There are plenty of other interesting faces who turn up for cameos and small roles as well. Danny McBride appears toward the end of the film (although we also see him earlier on as a recurring cardboard cut out) playing the average joe who is engaged to Ryan's sister, and proves that he can tone down the foul-mouth and attitude to do something a little more subtle. Zach Galifiniakis has a very brief appearance as an employee who is being let go, as does J.K. Simmons, while Sam Elliott has a great little part as a pilot, and Young MC even shows up at a corporate party to perform his '80s hit "Bust a Move". What more can you ask for? Some other people who have "cameos" in the movie include about 20 different non-actors who appear in short interview segments talking about their own recent layoffs and how they are coping with them. These people were told that they were being interviewed for a documentary about layoffs, and the resulting intercut footage is definitely a nice touch, adding a sense of realism and relevance to what is going on in the movie. There's little question that Up in the Air benefits from being so damn timely, and as a result, it's a movie that I think just about anyone can relate to in some way. Not only is the movie about downsizing, but it also has a lot of biting commentary on communication in the digital age. When you are able to take uncomfortable situations that so many people are suffering through and make them laugh about it without being insulting or presumptuous, you are doing something very special, delicate, and I think, necessary. Anyone who was turned off by Juno and is now dreading something equally as quirky can rest assured that Diablo Cody had nothing to do with the script. This movie more closely resembles the dark satire of Thank You for Smoking, although I think it is much more mature and a stronger film overall. Once again, there is no clear in-your-face style, but the aerial photography shots and the airport visuals are gorgeous. The only point at which it falters comes toward the end of the film, when you get a slightly cliched romantic comedy scenario involving the sister's wedding, which threatens to reinforce the status quo. Everything suddenly becomes drenched in sentimentality for a while and the indie folk tunes come out of the woodwork, but thankfully the movie throws a curve ball that avoids the easy way out. Make no mistake, Up in the Air is an indie comedy with a ton of mainstream appeal, but it also has a deeper, human element that draws you in. It's funny yet thoughtful, and it has so much to say about the current economic climate that we are living in, that it's impossible not to recommend. Years from now, however, the movie will still speak to universal truths about relationships, career paths, lifestyle decisions and the grey areas that they inhabit. You may or may not identify directly with Ryan Bingham, but we can all learn a thing or two from his journey. -- Sean

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

TIFF Review: Whip It

Greg — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:25:38 +0000

Whip It Directed by Drew Barrymore Starring: Ellen Page, Marcia Gay Harden, Kristen Wiig, Drew Barrymore, Juliette Lewis, Eve, Jimmy Fallon, Daniel Stern, and Zoe Bell Whip It stars Ellen Page as Bliss, a bored Texas teenager who feels the need to escape her small hometown, her meaningless waitress job and the beauty pageants that her mother wishes she would take more seriously. On a shopping trip to nearby Austin, Bliss spots some roller derby girls delivering flyers for their upcoming games. The derby girls are covered in tattoos and piercings. They wear short skits, high socks (oh yeah) or fishnets. Bliss likes the style, grabs a flyer and heads home. With her best friend in tow, Bliss heads to the game and is introduced to a hard-hitting, take-no-prisoners sport for women. She meets some players Smashlee Simpson (Barrymore), Rosa Sparks (Eve), Iron Maven (Lewis), Bloody Holly (Bell) and Maggie Mayhem (Wiig), who invites Bliss to try out for the team next week. Bliss makes the Hurl Scouts team and begins attending practices and games all the while keeping it from her debutante mother (Harden) and oafy father (Stern). There's a very weak subplot involving a boy in a band that seems more like filler than storyline. Page has zero chemistry with the actor playing her love interest, there's no payoff and honestly, I felt a little cheated watching scenes with this because it took away from more roller derby action. Clearly, the roller derby scenes are the best part with actors doing their own stunts and the scenes were choreographed well. Like a good sports movie, the games are intense, yet because it's a comedy, still a little light-hearted. Speaking of sports movies, I knew I was going to get a training/music montage scene and did we ever. Speed skating drills, sit-ups, jumps and spins all to the tune of 38 Special's "Caught Up in You". That was awesome. The roller derby is really the only reason to see this film. Most of the other scenes fall kind of flat as much of the dialogue is hokey and predictable. When I first saw the trailer for Whip It, I was interested, not only because of the roller derby, but because I wanted to see if Drew Barrymore had any directing chops. Coming from the family lineage that she does, I expected maybe she had some talents other than acting. She's not the greatest actor, by all means, but for the most part she's passable. After watching the movie, I realize that Drew Barrymore's directing is pretty much like her acting. It's just....there. -- Greg

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Jennifer’s Body Review

Sean — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:17:49 +0000

Jennifer's Body Directed by: Karyn Kusama Written by: Diablo Cody Starring: Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Adam Brody, Johnny Simmons, J.K. Simmons, Amy Sedaris When first-time screenwriter Diablo Cody won an Oscar a couple of years ago for the indie hit Juno, it immediately catapulted her to a level of fame that very few Hollywood writers ever reach. This attention also came with its fair share of backlash, as many people chose to look down on her very public previous career choice as a stripper, while others simply labeled Juno as overrated and too clever for its own good. Regardless, the movie had marked the arrival of a bold new voice in Hollywood, and one that wouldn't likely be going away anytime soon. After launching the successful Showtime series The United States of Tara (with the help of Steven Spielberg, no less), Cody went on to tackle her sophomore film, a horror-comedy hybrid called Jennifer's Body. The movie was further thrust into the spotlight when Transformers sexpot Megan Fox signed on to play the lead role, ensuring that the film would have plenty of hype, both positive and negative. Even if Cody's script could be twice as brilliant as her debut, there would still be naysayers looking to cut her down to size. Unfortunately, as it turns out, Jennifer's Body is neither edgy nor divisive... it's just plain mediocre. The story is one for the ages: hot high school cheerleader Jennifer Check and her nerdy best friend Anita "Needy" Lesnicky attend a local rock show, when a freak fire breaks out at the bar. After a narrow escape, Jennifer ditches Needy to hang out with the band, despite the fact that something is not quite right with them. Later that night, Needy has a disturbing encounter with Jennifer, and when bodies of male classmates start turning up torn to shreds a few days later, she is pretty sure that Jennifer has something to do with it. The problem is, no one believes her... not even her boyfriend, Chip. Jennifer's Body is not the first movie to view the throes of adolescence through the lens of horror, but it does offer a slightly new spin on the concept. There are some juicy ideas here, similar to those explored in such movies as Carrie, Buffy The Vampire Slayer and yes, even Teen Wolf. Jennifer must literally consume men in order to maintain her social status, and a feminist revenge angle is omnipresent, yet most of this is never fully explored, as the film is much more interested in the relationship between Jennifer and Needy than any of the boys. Horror fans will likely be disappointed, as aside from a couple of bloody kills and a few jump scares, there really isn't much in the way of atmosphere or suspense. Director Karyn Kusama (Girlfight, Aeon Flux) lacks any sort of background in horror, and other than some Raimi-esque tracking shots early on, she doesn't bring much to the table. Then again, the movie doesn't call for much more than that, since it is more appropriately categorized as a dark comedy. As seems to be the case with all of Diablo Cody's work, our attention must eventually be drawn back to the writing -- particularly the dialogue. If Cody's inventive slang drove you nuts in Juno, it will continue to annoy you in Jennifer's Body as well. This time around, instead of "homeskillet" and "honest to blog", we get "you give me such a wettie" and "Where's it at, Monistat?". For every one-liner that is actually funny, there are two or three that are just trying too hard. Thankfully, for the most part the snide quips are limited to Megan Fox's character, and her bitchy delivery seems rather appropriate. It doesn't make it any less grating, but at least she is supposed to be unpleasant. Amanda Seyfried's earnest performance as Needy counterbalances Jennifer's crass attitude, and is probably the best part of the movie -- well, aside from J.K. Simmons, who shows up as overly sensitive teacher Mr. Wroblewski. Adam Brody plays slightly against type as the douchebag leader of the band Low Shoulder, and is frighteningly committed to his ultra-serious on-stage persona. The problem with Jennifer's Body is that it wants to be a dark and satirical commentary on high school, but it also wants to remain easy for its teenage demographic to swallow. On the one hand, it wants to poke fun at pretentious indie bands, and yet at the same time, the soundtrack is filled with them. It wants to shoot down the idea of women being sex objects, and then it gives us a gratuitous lesbian make-out scene between Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried, just for the heck of it. The movie never finds its footing and just ends up feeling like Carrie for the Twilight crowd... and really, who wants to see that? With a little more focus and a steadier tone, Jennifer's Body could have been something memorable. A lot of the right elements are there, but the movie gets caught up in being cute and fails to give any sense of urgency or truly biting humour. A shrug of the shoulders is about all it earns from me, although I suppose it is the kind of movie that may eventually develop a cult following on DVD. As it is, personally I think I'd rather just watch Species or Teen Wolf instead. -- Sean

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

TIFF Review: Vengeance

Greg — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:59:26 +0000

Vengeance Directed by Johnnie To Starring: Johnny Hallyday, Anthony Wong, Lam Ka Tung, Lam Suet and Simon Yam For those that have read my TIFF reviews and updates over the past few years, you may remember me mentioning a director by the name of Johnnie To. Not only is he a great action director in Hong Kong, but I think he's one of the best ever in the world. There's something to his style that I just love, so you can imagine how happy I was that his latest film Vengeance came to TIFF. Vengeance is the story of an older man with a failing memory named Costello (Hallyday) whose daughter is in a hospital struggling to survive, while her Chinese husband and their two kids lay dead after a gang hit. Who wanted them dead and why? Costello is immediately warned by police to stay out of the way and let them do their jobs. He crosses paths with some hitmen and hires them to find the ones responsible for hurting his daughter. As the mystery begins to be solved we are treated to a number of scenes that can only be described as bullet ballets. We get shootouts at a picnic, gunfights in an apartment complex, and duels in an open field using tumbling bales of compressed paper as shields. Can Costello and the hitmen exact revenge on those responsible for the deaths of his family? Will his failing memory be the cause of their failure? Does the word vengeance have the same meaning when you can't remember those that have wronged you or those that you've lost? Go see the movie to find out. Obviously, since I'm a big fan of Johnnie To, I had high hopes. I love his action style. I like the slo-mo fight sequences. I love the shots of the guns in each holster and then the shots of the hands reaching for the guns all the way to having the weapons pointed at each other. To me, there's an art form to it and I think Johnnie To has it mastered. Once the hitmen find those responsible, the film becomes non-stop action with gunfight after gunfight. Each time in a different location to keep it all fresh. His regular cast of actors are all here, playing the three hitmen (Anthony Wong, Lam Ka Tung, Lam Suet) and the crime lord (Simon Yam). Solid performances from this crew as always. The one problem I had with this film was Johnny Hallyday. If you don't know who he is, he's a pop star in France. He's been known as the French Elvis Presley. Not only are his singing chops nowhere near the caliber of the King, but he's even a worse actor. It looked like Johnnie To showed up at the nursing home, checked Hallyday out for a bit and put him in the movie. Even with the laughable and somewhat bizarre performance of Hallyday being the core of this film, the fired bullets, the blood splatters and the rising death count made this film enjoyable to watch. The back drop of Hong Kong is always a good setting for a hitman versus hitman war and with Johnnie To at the helm, this bullet ballet gets an extra curtain call or two. - Greg

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!