The House on Haunted Hill (re-make)

Yesterday I watched another re-make (a much more satisfying one, I must say.) I ordered the 1999 re-make of The House on Haunted Hill from Amazon, and sat down to watch it when I got home from work. Now, I must admit that I have never seen the original, so I had no real basis of comparison. However, I will say that the movie pretty much scared the shit out of me, and that's a good thing. I'd probably rank it right alongside Thirteen Ghosts (the remake with Tony Shaloub) and The Frighteners as far as scary movies go. I think to appreciate movies like this, you have to be able to set aside the thinking adult part of your brain and watch with your kid brain--the part of your brain that doesn't consider things like "How are they affording this?" or "Are they REALLY that stupid?" The movie was set in a 1930s era abandoned insane asylum, so right off you've got the super-creepy going on, and the building they used was fantastic. The lead characters were played by Taye Diggs and Ali Larter (Final Destination) and both of them did a great job being sympathetic, but still multi-dimensional. Less well-played were the other members of the ensemble cast. I'm not saying they were bad, just...not as good. Geoffrey Rush played the Vincent Price-like Mr. Price complete with dinky mustache. As usually happens when Rush is allowed any freedom, he immediately began munching the scenery, and didn't stop until the end--luckily, that was sort of what his character was all about, and he was funny, so it wasn't unpleasant. Peter Gallegher and Famke Jansson couldn't act their way out of a paper bag with flashlights and machetes, so I wasn't too disappointed by their wooden performances. Chris Kattan was...Chris Kattan. He was still kind of annoying, but you could tell he was trying really really hard to tone it down. The special effects were fairly impressive (and even more entertaining if you get the DVD and watch the extras featuring the director's explanations of how they were done) and I have to say they definitely managed to keep up a mood of tension and suspense throughout. Mind you, the plot is a bit scattered and it's clear that if you're looking for true character development, you've come to the wrong place. But if you just want to be creeped out and spooked, I recommend this one. (And as I mentioned before, the extras are pretty good. There are a lot of explanations from the director on how various effects were achieved, and also a featurette on adapting the movie from the original William Castle version that's pretty interesting.)

You know, if I were trapped in some house of horrors, you can bet the last thing I'd do is prance down into the super-super-creepy basement with a mere penlight all by myself. Instead, I'd have my butt planted sqare in front of the front door, and I'd be clinging on to whomever I could get ahold of.

I think this may indicate that I am in fact a coward...or that I have common sense. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

I've also seen some movies lately, which I have been meaning to talk about. The Boyfriend and I finally got arond to watching the re-make of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and as much as I wish I could say I liked it...I can't. It's not that it was necessarily bad, or that I think there was anything special wrong with it. I simply think the original film was so unique that a re-make can't begin to hold a candle to it. The Boyfriend found it particularly upsetting because he is a big fan of the original. He spent the whole movie comparing this version to the original and pointing out the differences. I personally try not to that when watching re-makes--I like to try and keep in mind that this is a new movie, with a new director, new cast, and new direction. Unfortunately, I wasn't especially thrilled with the new direction. There were parts that I enjoyed. While I wasn't entirely enamored with Johnny Depp's portrayal of Wonka, he had his totally hilarious moments. Some of his clipped one-liners or throw-aways had me giggling aloud as I watched. (My favorite scene, in fact, involved a throw-away joke that tied back to the beginning of the film. When the children arrive, there is a dancing, singing, audio-animatronic puppet display, similar to the 'It's a Small World' ride at Disneyworld. As the intro show comes to the end, the dancing dolls catch fire, and the whole thing grinds to a draggy, creepy, flaming halt, and is all but forgotten. However, later on, as they're touring the factory, Wonka takes them through a hospital looking room, and says "This is the Wonka Doll and Puppet Burn Hospital. It was added very recently." and then they walk out. I laughed my ass off--I love details like that.) I was also very impressed by the special effects; obviously, there are things that can be done today with special effects that hadn't even been thought of when the original film was made. Violet's en-blueberry-ment, the trained squirrels in the nut room, the lovely chocolate room, the functions of the great glass elevator--all these things looked stunning. The downside was that some of the changes were not for the better. The whole subplot with Wonka's childhood was just kind of annoying. And the Oompa-Loompas all being the same guy was lame. The biggest issue I had with it, though (and I'm pretty sure The Boyfriend agreed) was the overall outlook of the film. In the original, Gene Wilder plays Willy Wonka as a genius who remains a hermit because he is so busy creating that people just get in his way and slow him down--he can deal with people, he just doesn't want to. On the other hand, there's Tim Burton's version of Willy Wonka (as played by Johnny Depp.) Burton's Wonka is UNABLE to interact with people--he isn't locking everyone else out...he's locked himself IN. I suppose this was to be expected, since every single Tim Burton movie ever is basically the same. The lonely and misundestood hero existing in his beautiful, intricate inner world is Burton's calling card, and while I guess technically it works here, it just doesn't resonate with me in this particular circumstance. The difference in point of view of the main character colors how the entire rest of the film plays out, and for me, this particular interpretation didn't work. I'm not saying you shouldn't see it, but I'm saying you really shouldn't expect too much.

To Brokeback or Not to Brokeback...

So I'm still debating about whether I'm going to go see 'Brokeback Mountain' or not.
On the one hand, I want to be supportive of innovative, original, genre-twisting, stupid-Christian-fundie-riling cinema.
On the other hand, I hate going to see movies that have had too much hype. I just end up feeling like a lemming.
On one hand, I don't want to see it because I KNOW it ends badly (there's no other possible way for it to end, really) and it's going to make me all teary and weepy and pathetic.
On the other hand, the near irresistable and drool-inducing siren song of most probably naked Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, who are probably worth a few tears and feeling a bit like a lemming.
Decisions, decisions.

The Caustic Critic's Fall Television Awards '05

So there are a handful of interesting new shows, several shows I'm discovering for the first time, and some beloved classics with new twists this fall. I've been meaning to discuss them for quite some time (notice how we're, like a full month into the fall season) but I haven't had the time previous to this. But now I have all the time in the world and a lot to say about the appalling number of television hours I watch. (God bless the DVR--without it...I'd probably have to get a hobby or something.)

Best New Show: Criminal Minds on CBS">This is yet another crime show, this time revolving around a group of FBI profilers led by Mandy Patinkin (you know, the guy in the cholesterol drug commercial who walks down the spiral staircase...oh, he was also Inigo Montoya--you killed his father, prepare to die.) There's nothing particularly new here--just a team made up of different personalities who investigate and track down dangerous criminals. However, I think the writing and characterization put this particular show in the "Best New" slot. I especially like the young genius, Patinkin's protege (Matthew Guy Gubler, previously seen as "Intern #1 in Life Aquatic.) He's nervous, geeky, too-smart-for-his-own-good, and--in my opinion--totally endearing. I also dig the developing friendly-flirty relationship between the departmental playboy (Shemar Moore) and the chunky but AWESOME tech (Kirsten Vangsness.) I feel like the writing on this show puts it above some of the others currently on TV, taking the time to develop characters and work in actual science and current techniques instead of just trying to draw the viewer with gory corpses and giant explosions (not saying that they don't have some of that, too, but it's not the focal point.) The only drawback is Thomas Gibson's wooden portrayal of the head agent. He sucked on Dharma and Greg and he still sucks now.

Worst New Show: Wanted on TNT > I was going to put Head Cases in this slot, but since I only watched ten minutes of the pilot and then it was cancelled after only two episodes, I figured it was already obvious to everyone that it sucked. Therefore, Wanted gets the award. Everything that's great about Criminal Minds is what sucks about this show. There were some attempts to develop the characters, but mostly those got bogged down in stereotypes and the main character's annoying interaction with his bitchy ex-wife and lame kids. (I have strange preference when it comes to my crime shows--I want to see the characters' personalities, but I don't want to be in their houses. I want to see how their personalities affect and motivate them ON THE JOB. I don't care what goes on at home--especially if it involves some miserable harpy.) I kept waiting for this show to get good--I watched it every week, the whole hour, hoping that maybe THIS week, it was going to finally figure out what the hell was going on. The cast seemed promising: Gary Cole of Office Space, Lee Tergesen (the very talented man behind the much loved Beecher from Oz), and Ryan Hurst, seen most recently in The Ladykillers. However, no amount of talent or effort on these poor beleagered actors' parts can make up for terrible writing and gimmicky editing. In a script littered with lame cliches, gratuitious violence, unneccessary explosions, and appalling police techniques, filmed in a style rife with lurching, jumpy cuts and pointless filters, these actors don't stand a chance. There were a bare few redeeming points that made the show watchable--the performance of Hurst as an ATF agent trying to find a way to reconcile his Christian faith with his job tracking down the worst and most evil members of society while keeping his own dark secrets under wrap is definitely a high point. Another is the surprisingly low-key and amusing performance of Josey Scott (lead singer of Saliva) as a pierced-tongue techno-geek. In conclusion, I spent an entire season of a show waiting for it to get good, and I was seriously disappointed.

Still Not Sure Just How I Feel About It New Show: Ghost Whisperer on CBS >Pros: Sometimes interesting plots, some real tearjerkers, interesting concept, Aisha Tyler can be funny. Cons: Jennifer Love Hewitt, some really lame plots, Aisha Tyler was better on CSI, Jennifer Love Hewitt's ridiculous wardrobe full of symbolic white flowy dresses, the fact that she helps all these people all the time in her small town, but every time something happens she has to explain yet again that she can talk to spirits and no one ever believes her, did I mention how much I hate Jennifer Love Hewitt?

Best Show I've Recently Discovered: Numb3rs on CBS > You know a show is good when it can make ME care about...MATH. Yes, math. The premise of the show is that an FBI agent (Rob Morrow, best known for his outstanding performance as Dr. Fleishman on Northern Exposure) who, when a case is really giving him trouble, calls on his brother Charlie (David Krumholtz, the nerd who got the dick drawn on his face in Ten Things I Hate About You) who is a math genius. Charlie then teams up with his eccentric and hilarious colleague Larry (Peter McNichol of Ally McBeal fame) to use math to help solve crimes. I know it sounds a little like Mathnet, but trust me, it's not. Do you know how remote-controlled car locks work? No? Me either, until I watched an episode of this show and Charlie explained it. The characterization is great--the dynamics between the two brothers (the rivalry, the competition, and yet still the affection), their relationship with their father (Judd Hirsch of Taxi), their relationships with women (yes, there is personal life in this show, but it's actually surprisingly interesting), and of course their feelings about the crimes themselves. In addition, there are two great female roles on this show (something not often seen in crime shows). Don's partner is a tough talking detective who seems to be developing a soft spot for the geeky Larry, and Charlie's grad student/assistant Amita is a brilliant Indian woman who may or may not have the hots for Charlie. I wouldn't usually endorse anything having to do with math, but I think this is a must-see for math geeks and regular people alike.

Runner-Up: Cold Case on CBS > Okay, yes, it's another crime show. But I love them, so leave me alone, all right? Good. This is another one that has pretty good writing (though it occasionally comes dangerously close to being corny). I haven't watched it enough to see the characters be that fleshed out, but what I've seen so far has been acceptable. The focus in each episode is on the case (as it should be) and I enjoy the way these cases unfold, usually through witness flashbacks. I'm not so sure about the gimmick of showing characters at their current age and sometimes flashing to them in their current setting but as themselves at the time of the crime. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't--if the crime happened when the character was a teenager in 1970, then the flashback makes sense, but if it happened three years ago, it seems kind of ridiculous (of course, I suppose you have remain consistant with gimmicks like that.) However, I very much appreciate that they consistantly use music from the year the crime happened throughout the episode--it definitely helps to put the viewer in the proper context. The main character is pleasant but kind of annoying in her good-hearted earnestness, but the other members of her team--cynical older veteran detectives, a hunky yet sensitive detective, and now a new, enthusiastic young female detective even things out a bit. Also, the final montage which revisits all the players in that episode's story (flashing both their present and past forms) and then the appearence of the victim at the end is pretty hokey, not to mention suspiciously long.

Best New Twist in an Old Show: Law & Order: Criminal Intent on NBC > I can sum it up in one sentence fragment: Chris Noth as Detective Mike Logan. I loved him ten years ago when he was on the original, and I still love him now.

Worst New Twist in an Old Show: Law & Order on NBC > I realize that this is actually a twist that happened last season, but I am still pissed off: Detective Fontana sucks. He's annoying and obnoxious and if you think he is Lenny Briscoe-alike, let me tell you something: I remember Lenny, and he is NO LENNY. I realize that Jerry Orbach (God rest his soul) had to be replaced. However, Dennis Farina (Cousin Avi in Snatch--and this character is so similar it's almost frightening) is NOT the proper replacement. Not to mention that he's kind of crooked and hello, I am so not interested in his "mysterious and shady" past. Also, I dislike the new ADA--I had just gotten used to the last one. Okay, I am picky about this show, but it's my most consistanly watched show since I was about 11--it's like a part of the family.

Best New Reality Show: The Apprentice: Martha Stewart > It's kind of comforting to realize that this is pretty much the only "new" reality show this season. (I'd like to point out that Hell's Kitchen, which was on during the summer season was MUCH MUCH better--mostly because Gordon Ramsay is just totally AWESOME--but unfortunately doesn't really qualify for this award. However, when it comes on again [whenever that is] you should definitely watch it.) This version of The Apprentice makes a lot more sense to me than the original did. The tasks seem to at least sort be connected to what Martha Stewart does--each episode has a "Martha Lesson" so there is some kind of focus for the teams to build their project around. They have also had tasks that seemed like real jobs and less like sheer publicity stunts (writing a children's book, decorating a themed hotel suite). There is of course the usual mix of interesting/charming/annoying/crazy people to keep the dynamics interesting (I'm rooting for Howie, but that's just me.) Plus, you all are aware of how I feel about Martha. She can pretty much do no wrong as far as I'm concerned, so I'm interested in seeing (even a skewed view of) how she runs her business. Plus, she's a lot less creepy than "The Donald", and I really dig the chilly little notes she writes to those booted off.

Best New Season of an Old Reality Show: Survivor: Guatemala on CBS > First of all, the season began with the survivors doing a 24-hour, 11 mile hike through the Guatemalan jungle followed by a canoe race just to determine where each tribe would be living. Apparently, the cries from viewers that the past few seasons were "too easy" were heard by Burnett and crew. This season has been the most difficult I've seen since I began watching Survivor. The challenges have been very difficult, and the tribal switch-up in the most recent episode has definitely kept everyone on their toes. I will say that bringing back Stef and Bobby Jon from last season seems a little contrived, but I can't complain too much, as they were my favorites. Of course, Stef has become less "I am Woman, Hear Me Roar" and more "I am Woman, Hear Me Whine", but BJ is still awesome, if not particularly classy or intelligent. I'm anxious to see how the alliances will shake out. So far, Stef's bad luck cloud hasn't abated, and the tribes have been voting off those who are perceived as weak or lazy. It's still too early for much individual strategizing, but I figure BJ won't last too long once that happens, since he has until this point survived on sheer brute strengh and bullish determination. The Boyfriend and I watch this together every week and during the commercial we discuss what's going to happen, what people might do, and what we'd do if faced with the same situation. It's probably one of my favorite parts of the week, so I suppose I could be biased toward this show just a bit.

Best Guilty Pleasure Reality Show: America's Next Top Model on UPN > There's nothing quite like watching a bunch of vapid chicks compete against each other at bizarre and totally random tasks. The sub-plots are obviously heavily edited, the shoots are usually extremely ridiculous ("Now we're going to dress you up entirely in pompoms, paint your face orange, hook you up to this camel, blow sand and wind at you with this giant fan, and then fly you and the camel through the air on a cable in front of a green screen--now look sexy!") and the girls tend to be amazingly stupid. However, watching them begin to frazzle and start to break down and attack each other is a lot of fun. I always pick the wrong one to root for (as I've mentioned before, it's always the tall, awkward, small-town girl who is confused about her sexuality and incapable of walking in heels) but it's interesting to see who gains weight, who has a total breakdown, who hates her make-over, who gets sick, who gets ostracized, who quits, who lasts and who doesn't. I will admit that I find both of the Js somewhat annoying (though Miss J's Esther Williams get-up was a high-light of last week's episode and Mr. J actually gave useful advice during the photo shoot, which was probably a first...) and that Twiggy--fashion icon or no--is inutterably dull when compared to the clinically insane Janice Dickinson. Oh, and Nigel is cute, but he still creeps me out just a little.

So there you have it--the picks and pans of the Fall 2005 schedule. This list (with the exception of Survivor) is made up of the shows that I tend to record and watch when The Boyfriend is either busy or at work, so this is purely my opinion. Were you to ask him, he'd likely say that ALL of these (except the previously mentioned) totally suck. There are of course some great fall-backs, as well as some shows (Scrubs, Arrested Development) that I always mean to watch and dont, some that I end up watching whether I like it or not (Celebrity Poker, World Poker Tour, Poker Superstars,), and some that we watch regularly together (Simpsons, Family Guy, Good Eats, Pardon the Interruption, Hockey).

Miller's Crossing

We watched Miller's Crossing, a Coen Brothers movie, yesterday. It's really very good--even better than I expected. It's a 1930s gangster movie, but it's extremely well done. Gabriel Byrne does an excellent job as the star. He's a guy caught between these two warring factions, using and being used by everyone. It's very similar to The Big Lebowski in that way, that everyone has something going on, and there's one guy in the middle trying to figure out what's going on and what the next move should be. The difference is that Byrne's character is very SMART, smarter by far than the Dude, and thus is able to do much more of his own Machiavellian manipulation. The cinematography was great--no weird tricks or gimmicks. The script was well-written, incorporating period lingo without being cheesy, and there were no plot-holes that I really noticed. Every action had a reason and a consequence, and in the end it became clear both what everyone's motives were and what the ultimate consequences of the actions would be. In all, I think it's a top-notch film and highly recommend it to anyone who likes a well-made movie, particularly to Coen brothers fans.

Two For One: "Suspect Zero" and "A Dirty Shame"

Suspect Zero was all right, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it. I found the acting to be reasonable, though I think they could have found someone a bit more effective than Aaron Eckhart for the lead--though perhaps the point was that he is so Nordic and whitebread looking. The story was decent--an interesting twist on the usual "chase the serial killer" genre--but nothing to write home about. (I did appreciate that when Suspect Zero was finally found he was an average looking guy since--contrary to people's usual thoughts--serial killers are generally not hunchbacked, drooling, crazy-eyed maniacs. Most of them, in fact, are average in the extreme. Take the BTK killer for example: if you look at him, he looks a little off, but no more off than a lot of other people you see on the street every day.) However, my main problem with this was very similar to my issue with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow--no, not Gwyneth Paltrow--a reliance on visual effects rather than a strong story. I guess I just don't like when the director of a thriller tries to place too much responsiblity for tension on effects instead of on a tight story and top notch action. I don't WANT to be scared by a red filter or visual distortion or scratchiness. I want you to crawl into my head and freak me the fuck out from the inside. Look at Alfred Hitchcock--that man could make a shot of blood swirling down a drain more terrifying than anything in Suspect Zero. He understood how to pick the right shots, the right actors, the right lines of dialogue. He didn't need to use a red filter to signal "Look! Scary stuff is happening! WhoooOOOooo!" A single look, a quiet line of dialogue, even a shot of an object in the right place was enough for Hitchcock to scare the living shit out of you. I think most contemporary thriller directors have lost that ability.

A Dirty Shame is something else entirely. First of all, I don't think I've ever seen so much dick in a non-porno film in my life. (No, I take that back, actually, The Pillow Book probably had more, but that at least had Ewan McGregor--this movie was mostly extremely ugly people's penii.) I feel like Waters had come almost the full circle, back around to the intentional disquiet of Pink Flamingoes. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what point Waters was trying to make, and that bothers me, because I know he had one. Perhaps the whole point was to make the viewer extremely uncomfortable. I mean, I feel like I'm a pretty tolerant person. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms as long as they aren't harming anyone. And while I figure I'm fairly sexually average (I'm not really into anything super kinky, but I'm aware those things are out there--mostly, actually, from watching CSI and SVU--and that there are some people who really enjoy them) there were things in this movie that made me extremely uncomfortable. Perhaps because everything was so extreme and out-of-control. And maybe that's Waters' goal--rubbing the viewer's face in it, you know, like "Hey! Look at this! Look at this! Does this make you uncomfortable? Do you think this is okay, but this is dirty? Does this upset you? Look at this!" Maybe making people look at their own views of the world, show those of us who think that we're tolerant and hip that maybe we're not as cool as we think we are. And the whole idea of a concussion bringing on sex addiction--is he trying to comment on the fact that in our society, most people think you have to have some kind of excuse to enjoy sex, particularly the kinky sort; that if you get a sexual rise out of shitting on people or rubbing up against people or acting like a giant infant that there must be something WRONG with you? And what about Johnny Knoxville's character Ray-Ray's portrayal as a sexual Christ figure, leading his disciples into the sexually liberated promised land? I can't tell you whether I'd recommend this movie, since I'm not really sure how I felt about it. I will tell you that after watching it, I literally had to go take a shower because I felt dirty. (I'm amazed that this picture got a mainstream release, frankly.) As for the acting and the directing...I didn't really notice it. I will say that I was surprisingly impressed with the performances of Chris Issak and Selma Blair--neither of them are really known for strong acting talent, but they were both great. I was also amused to see that Waters had many of his weird little regulars (Mink Stole, Patty Hearst) return. I'd say that my biggest problem with it was that Johnny Knoxville didn't get naked, ha ha (no, really. I was really hoping.) Mostly I'm frustrated by the fact that I feel like I missed out on what John Waters was trying to tell me. If any of you have seen it and have thoughts, please please tell me what YOU thought

Batman Begins

The Boyfriend and I went out to see Batman Begins. I was surprised by how much I liked the movie. I thought it was going to be your typical action super-hero movie, but it was impressively intelligent (in my humble opinion.) While I did sort of miss the whole crazily dressed villians, it was kind of nice that the bad guys had a better motive for doing what they did than "Hee hee! I'm deranged!" The idea of actually tying crime in a super-hero movie to economic factors and their effects on the city was a novel one, and made the film seem more intelligent. I thought it was particularly well-written, and appreciated the fact that the director left in important backstory and character development instead of doing what many directors do and chopping that out in order to squeeze in another explosion or unnecessary fight scene. All the characters had their own distinct personalities and motivations, and I was thrilled with the acting (except for Katie Holmes--that poor girl not only makes terrible relationship decisions, but she couldn't act her way out of a wet paper back with a flashlight and a machete. Didn't help that her character--like most female characters in Batman movies with the exception of Catwoman--was a self-righteous bitch. That was the one part I found disappointing.) Christian Bale had just the right balance of brooding mystery and charming socialite. Sir Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman--both of whom I enjoy in almost everything I've every seen them in--were spot on. Caine was particularly adept at providing comic relief while still functioning as Bruce Wayne's emotional anchor. Cillian Murphy was very pretty, and performed ably enough. Liam Neeson chewed some scenery here and there, but mostly behaved himself. I found Gary Oldman somewhat miscast as good cop Gordon. Perhaps because I'm not used to seeing him be a nice guy--usually he's evil in everything he does. Not to mention that he looked revolting. Anyway, I was pleased with the movie over-all, and highly recommend it to any of you who haven't seen it yet. I also will be looking forward with pleased anticipation for the follow-up. Christian Bale in the Batsuit--can it ever be a bad thing?