"Look at my red hands and my mean face..."

I suggest that Brad Pitt is a good actor, one who challenges himself only sometimes. I thought he was very good in SEVEN. I thought he was funny in SNATCH - a movie that ages horribly. I thought he was terrific in TWELVE MONKEYS. Aside from these flicks, I have a hard time recommending any of his other roles - that includes Fight Club and Babel.

I think he is a moody actor; brooding, introspective, contemplative. It is hard for actors like this to find meaty roles, especially when they're a sex symbol of Pitts caliber. An actor like this needs to find roles that exploit their celebrity, play off of their larger than life persona, and give the actor a chance to brood, to act with their eyes, body language and sexuality.

Pitt has found the PERFECT role in a near perfect film. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is not a small miracle or a minor masterpiece - this film is an epic accomplishment; it is gritty, raw, beautiful, poetic, lyrical, and occasionally mesmerizing. It exists somewhere between historically accurate and fabled history - that exact place where a legend is born. Technically, it reminds you of a western that John Cassavetes might have made - or something Robert Altman did make with McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

The movie has a dream-like quality, most of which is due to the STUNNING cinematography, which restores the western to its iconic roots. Every shot seems carefully modulated to enhance the film's moody, dazed sensation. I can honestly say that this is one of the single most beautiful films I have ever seen.

Everyone knows the story, so I won't talk too much about plot except to say that Robert Ford(Casey Affleck - shockingly good) worms his way into the James Gang, lead by Frank and Jesse James. He is obsessed with the James' celebrity and spends most of the movie trying to get close to Pitt's western icon.

Pitt, well, Pitt's performance is not unlike the excellent Viggo Mortensen performance I reviewed last week - it feeds off his physicality, his sheer presence. The difference with Pitt's role is that he is truly unnerving sometimes. He enters a room and sort of floats around, taking control the space. There is one scene, where he interrogates a member of his gang whom he suspects has betrayed him - Jesse James was paranoid and capable of sudden, vicious violence - in this scene, Pitt acts with his eyes, solely his eyes, and you can sense all that he is capable of in that very moment and Andrew Domanik (director) lets his camera linger on Pitt's face, lets him think, and the tension grows as we read his mind.

That's something I love about this film. People complain of its length and its self-indulgence, but this film features people who think, who just sit and contemplate their actions, their lives - people really do this. Andrew Domanik allows his characters to think and that's something Cassavetes would do, although some of his characters didn't have the capacity to think, which was typically their downfall.

Something tells me that this will be another amazing film that goes unnoticed, perhaps even at awards time. That is a shame because here is a film so well crafted that it will immediately shoot up the lists of my ALL-TIME great list. It really is that good and Pitt really is that good. Its one of those SCARFACE roles or John Belushi roles, where just the image of him allowing snakes to coil around his arm will be inconic.

I hope people don't miss this one. I know it is long and slow to develop, but the care and skill on display here is top-notch - perhaps GREATNESS has truly been achieved. This is what I was referring to when I said that a film cannot be judged solely by the genre it is working within - this, so far this year, has been the best film I've seen.

Amazing Year For Movies

Here's some insight into me: I LOVE movies and because I love them so much, I tend to give every movie the benefit of the doubt...initially. Typically, I can find a way to enjoy every movie that I see; search out the positives, the things that a movie does well. I try and look at a movie according to what kind of genre-example its making - if its a horror film, then I look at its skill in terrifying me, or if its a twisty courtroom flick, then how well can it blindside me with its suprises? Sometimes, though, films cannot be defined by their genre, no, sometimes a film can feature such a higher quality of execution; be it writing, directing, acting, or just the ability to entertain, that it immediately becomes a classic.

Now, at first, when I exit a theater, I have my initial reaction, which I usually call my brother with. Nine times out of ten, my initial response is one of overwhelming praise because I simply enjoy going to the movies so much. Its my drug of choice. Pauline Kael called this "getting durnk on movies," which pretty much makes me an alcoholic. So, once I come down from that initial buzz, I think a little more clearly about a movie's true success.

With that out of the way, let met consider that almost every review that I've written so far has been positive. At first, I wondered if that was because I'm so partial to the movie-going experience that it doesn't really matter if the movie's good or not? Then, I realized that filmgoers everywhere might be experiencing something very special this year, something not unlike a phenomenon. Could it be that we are experiencing the GREATEST YEAR for films in quite some time. Perhaps ever? I think there is a strong case to be made here because the quality of the filmmaking that I have seen so far this year has been astounding, and the year is far from over, especially in regard to movies. I've already seen The Bourne Ultimatum, Into The Wild, The Lookout, Knocked Up, The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford, Once, and Eastern Promises. And I know just how much there is to look forward too - notably THERE WILL BE BLOOD, Paul T. Anderson's new film, which some are already calling one of the greatest films ever - even comparing it to Citizen Cane?

I suspect that I may eat my words at the end of year, especially if some of these flicks don't pan out. As it is, though, where we stand right now - this year could be historical.

Oldie, but Goodie: INNERSPACE

Oh man, this one takes me back. Far back. I LOVED this movie as a kid. It had everything that a child looks for in their movies; excitement, wonder, cool technology, fun special-effects, and lead actors that even a kid could relate too.

Dennis Quaid and Martin Short invest so much energy into this movie that you can't help but join the fun. This is easily martin Short's finest hour on the big-screen. Sure, he's been funny before, but never this likable. He, very simply, is fantastic as the protagonist of this movie.

Quaid probably has the more difficult part, but his natural charisma carries the day.

Here's the plot and GET THIS: Tuck Pendelton (Quaid) plays a a reckless, disgraced test pilot who has fallen on hard times via booze, and a failed relationship with reporter - Meg Ryan! As the movie open, Tuck has become the lead pilot for a top-secret experiment that involves him being miniaturized along with a small, jet-powered capsule, and injected into a bunny rabbit. The idea is that Tuck will pilot this capsule through the bunny and science will evolve with this stunning technology.

Complications ensue. A group of rogue scientists looking to steal the technology, break into the lab, knock-out everybody, a wild bicycle vs. BMW chase follows, and somehow the miniaturized Quaid ends up inside of Martin Short's meek, hypochondriac, grocery store cashier.

This is truly a wild movie. The plot gets even thicker, with Short essentially being piloted by Quaid, as Quaid radios instruction and emotional support, while Short performs all manner of death-defying stunts. It is very cool. And Short even gets to form a romantic relationship with Ryan, as he falls in love with her - much to the chagrin of Quaid on the inside.

Things get really wild when an other capsule - with a Terminator-like villain - is injected into Short and a battle royale unfolds with Quaid.

What amazes me is the way that the movie finds new ways to be creative.The plot continues to add complications, solutions, characters, and humor. It is impossible to get bored or even frustrated because the leads are so damn likable. The special effects are amazing and hold up quite well today, too.

I cannot recommend this movie enough.

Into The Wild

What a sad movie. I was truly saddened by this film when its credits began to role. I am surprised at myself for saying so, too, as I found myself slightly uninvolved in the film's first hour.

I realized, though, that's how Sean Penn (director) wanted me to feel.

You don't like Emile Hirsch very much in this movie. You admire his drive and his resourcefulness, but you hate his irrationality and you question his sanity.

I, personally, aside from the character, didn't like the choice of Hirsch for the part. He seemed too young, too fresh-faced. I think a Ryan Gosling may have destroyed a part like this. As is, though, Hirsch does well to carry the film.

Everyone knows the story; Chris McCannlis graduates college, drops everything, and decides to hitchhike across the country to Alaska, where he plans to live off the land. Along the way, he meets various characters, all of whom help him in some way. All of whom, Chris helps in some way.

What's great about all of these characters, Specifically the ones portrayed by Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, and Hal Holbrook, is that they all see through Chris. They are all wiser than he and they all know what he is searching for, but are wise enough to know that he is searching in all of the wrong places.

I don't really know what to write about this movie. It affected me on a very primal level - some place between wonder and reality, some place between growing-up and being a grownup. You can relate to Chris' urge to extricate himself from the things of man because you know the innocence of that dream - a deserted island with nothing but coconuts and sand. However, in Chris' case, you know that there is nothing innocent about it - his vision comes from pain and anger. He wants to go because he has no idea how else to address the betrayal he feels from his parents, especially his father.

The movie is a great, great tragedy.

I must say, however, that I was touched almost to tears by two segments. One being a quiet scene between Catherine Keener and Hirsch, where Keener speaks about her own son, and you can sense that she knows all the mistakes she made with her own child, but can't bare to talk about them. It is great acting.

The other is the entire last act of the movie, when Hal Holbrook turns up as a sympathetic, lonely old man who takes Chris in. Hal Holbrook breaks your heart. Plain and simple. Every line is invested with a sense of want, need, and love. I suspect that we are seeing an Oscar-nominee here in Holbrook because this is the finest acting he has ever done. When he asks his final, devastating request of Chris, it is hard to not feel emotionally walloped.

See it. I think it needs to be seen. Good luck, though.

Eastern Promises

I actually wrote this post once, but my computer decided to fuck me by going batshit and losing the entire post. So, I don't really feel like writing the entire thing again, but let me assure you that the original post was witty, eloquent, and convincing, as is typical of all my posts.

I believe that I began by saying, "a lot has happened in the 2 weeks since I've posted. I no doubt have disappointed all 5 of my readers, but I am determined to win their hearts with a slew of new posts this weekend." That's how I began and I intend to keep my word about about a complete renewal here. So, let me begin with David Cronenberg's minor masterpiece, EASTERN PROMISES.

Question 1: Did I attend a Variety-sponsored screening? YES
Question 2: Cronenberg and writer Steve Knight (surprise) present? YES
Question 3: Did I direct a question at both, which both of whom answered? HELL YES
Question 4: Can you hear their response anywhere? YES. HERE: http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=videoBC&bcpid=1079069523&bclid=1112164013&bctid=1184470637

EASTERN PROMISES is a small-scale, intimate gangster film that turns out to be less about gangsters than it is about people. This movie is driven by its characters. Its as if Steve Knight came up with four characters whom he loved and made a list of behaviours indigenous to them and built a plot that reacts solely to those behaviours. It could not have been too hard with the quality of these characterizations.

I don't want to say too much, for I'd hate to ruin the simplistic story by revealing the subtle, yet important twists. Suffice to say, that this is a story of 4 people and the ways in which they surprise themselves and one another by being more than they initially appear.

That's not to say they're all Keyser Soze.

The plot synopsis: Naomi Watts plays a midwife delivering the child of a dying, 14 yr old drug addict. She becomes determined to track down the girl's origins and her brief investigation leads her to a family-oriented restaurant run for Russian patriarch, Armin Mueller Stahl. Populating the dark corners of the restaurant are Stahl's son - Vincet Cassell, and his trusted, ice-cool Driver, played by ice-cool Viggo Mortensen. It all is a front for the Russian mafia, which is not a revelation of any sort.

This is all I will say of the plot. As for the performances, well, all are solid, but one, and really only one, is AMAZING. Viggo Mortensen gives a masterclass on underplaying cool, slick, calculating, vicious, stoic, and sensitive all at once. This is one of those iconic, poster-worthy performances that people will be talking about forever. Its a star turn. Something, and I hate to say it, but something that Brand may have done or something that Bogart did. He never tries to do so, but Viggo completely dominates the screen when he is there. Sometimes, he does so from the back or the left, or anywhere but the center of the shot. As I said, this is top-flight acting.

Now, the scene everybody is already talking about - The Bathhouse Knockdown dragout. Here is a fight scene whose blows land with an impact everyone in the audience will feel. Yes, Viggo is naked, but that only enhances the stakes, as he has nothing to hide behind. It is easily one of the greatest fight scenes every captured on film and that's all I will say.

Did I like this more than "A History of Violence?" I don't know. I think this is the better story, but that one featured the surprising, Oscar-caliber cameo by William Hurt - some of the best acting I have ever seen.

Go see EASTERN PROMISES and decide for yourself. Cross your fingers that Viggo and Cronenberg continue this relationship.

Death Proof & Tarantino

So yea, I love Tarantino flicks. I love them. I truly believe that PULP FICTION is the finest American film ever made. At any given time, I can watch that movie in its entirety. I can flip it on at any point in its running time and watch it the rest of the way through, loving every second of it. There are so many things to discover in it, so many elements to rediscover that you just sit back and marvel at its quality, its sense of humor, its deconstruction of "time" as it pertains to film.

Then there is the dialogue. Tarantino always writes great language, but Pulp Fiction takes things to a new plateau. Every character has something to say and a unique way to say it. Every conversation is like a tennis match, and when Travolta says, "Goddamn, that's a pretty good fuckin' milkshake," you smile because it sounds so perfect. He interweaves profanity as poetically as Mamet, if not more so, and uses repetition, slang, and pop-culture references to create his own universe, where even low-life scumbags are articulate.

I'm not sure that he can do wrong. I sometimes question his loyalty to Robert Rodriguez, a stylist who can't tell a story half as well as Tarantino, but I really think he makes amazing movies.

He has an energy, an over-the-top glee in his filmmaking that makes you think Tarantino is behind the camera laughing his ass off at what he's getting away with. Now, I know that he borrows elements from many other movies, but he is paying homage, not stealing, and everybody references some form of pop-culture when they tell a joke or a story. He's a junior Mad Scientist, just throwing different elements into the pot, stirring, and producing a Fizzy Volcano for a class presentation that wows all the kids.

I love JACKIE BROWN. I LOVE, absolutely LOVE the Kill Bill Saga. RESERVOIR DOGS? Amazing. TRUE ROMANCE (he wrote) contains a scene between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken that ranks up there with anything he's done. FROM DUSK TILL DAWN? Yea, it kind of sucked, thanks to the Rodriguez factor, but the first forty mintutes are vintage Quentin.

And now, Taratino is back with DEATH PROOF - his own grindhouse version of a slasher flick - and it feels like our boy has come home. This movie contains so much energy, so much infectious fucking energy, that you cannot help but listen and smile. Tarantino is clearly having some of the most fun he's had with a script - the exchanges here are perfect. There is one in particular, a scene where Kurt Russell (awesome) imitates John Wayne, and you can't see where he's going with the punchline, you can't predict what he will say next, but how he wraps it up is so amazing that you immediately want to hear it again. I suggest that this short sequence is up there with WALKEN VS. HOPPER and the entire BONNIE SITUATION portion of Pulp Fiction (hands down, Tarantino's finest hour).

I don't want to ruin this movie for anyone. I think it can appeal to anybody who sees it. It is violent, as these type usually are, but it is done with so much style, so much consideration and with such wit, that I immediately could list it up there near my favorites.

By the way; I'm a freak. When I watch this movie with friends, nobody understands the references to VANISHING POINT. Nobody knows the importance of the CHARGER. I saw VANISHING POINT when I was like ten on ENCORE. When you can really pick out Tarantino's references, you know that you're a freak.

3:10 To Yuma

As I suspected, Ebert was right. This is a great western. Better than TOMBSTONE and possibly better than UNFORGIVEN.

3:10 TO YUMA does so much right that it is difficult to talk about because of the sheer quantity of things that I could discuss; the acting, the writing, the directing - everything feels top notch. As you watch the movie, you realize that a lot of thought has gone into the production - not so much the settings or the action sequences, but the characters and the way that they're portrayed. It is a credit to the writing that each character is so precisely defined, each with their own quirks and principals - never really straying from them - showing the type of consideration not associated with the genre or a big studio film. Nothing that these characters do happens at the convenience of the plot. Sure, during the climax it is possible to contend that Crowe's motivations are foggy - I assure you that they are not.

A brief overview: Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a downtrodden rancher with two boys and a wife who isn't bored as much as she is uncertain of her husband's patriarchal ability . He has a bum leg from his days fighting in the war and is in danger of losing his farm to the fast-expanding railroad and mounting debt. Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a ferocious outlaw whose gang has just robbed the railroad for the thirtieth time, leaving only one survivor - MacElroy (Peter Fonda), a bounty hunter who has a history with Crowe.

When Crowe is captured, Bale agrees, for a price, to help transport him to a train depot so that he can be taken to his execution. Needless to say, things to do not go according to plan. Crowe's gang, led by Charly Prince (gonzo Ben Forster) is hot on the trail and killing everything in sight.

I'd like to pause just for a second to marvel at the scary insanity of Ben Forster. He was creepy in HOSATGE, opposite Bruce Willis, but in 3:10 he is in a different stratosphere. This is the way that cold-blooded should be played and be sure to observe him closely in two scenes; one is near the beginning where he assures Crowe that he will be close by, hoping that Crowe needs him as much as he needs Crowe. The second comes near the end - you'll know which - you can see the disbelief in his eyes, exactly when his heart breaks.

There is much that I have left out. Things like Crowe's quiet scene with a mysterious barmaid or his seductive questioning of Bale's wife (Gretchen Mol), or Bale's son, who figures heavily into the proceedings.

What is amazing about 3:10 is that every character is an immovable object - they have their principals, morals, goals, and they rarely stray from them. You could argue that Crowe changes, but I'd disagree. It was always in his character to do what he does. He is a cold-blooded, ruthless killer, but he is also incredibly intelligent. He has ridden with the worst of men, killed countless people, and yet, he philosophizes about religion and human frailty, draws sketches, and contemplates his actions. People expect a heartless outlaw to be heartless, but when the outlaw is this intelligent, you cannot know what to expect and as the movie unfolds, various people are taken back by Crowe's thoughtfulness.

Bale is different. There are expectations for a person like him too, but he never knew just how low they were and how far he is from exceeding them. He is steadfast in his principals and loyal to his family, but you sense that everything he is doing is for himself, as if purpose finally dawned on him. This is where the writing and acting rise above genre standards; Bale acts so much with his eyes. His character says little, but there is an exhaustion in his eyes, like he's been living a lie or hasn't really been living at all. The movie goes through great pains to establish that Bale's family and his farm are important, but you sense that Bale has always wanted to do something unequivocal and in Wade, he has found his catalyst.

Setups like this can make for great cinema. Two smart, strong, and evenly matched adversaries going at it. The difference here - and what separates 3:10 - is that neither character has a bloodlust for the other. Neither is eager to kill the other because they find each other so fascinating. They circle one another, test for weaknesses, and find an equal.

As it is with so many enemies, these two might have been friends in another life.

Then again, who knows?

3:10, Ebert, and a Great Weekend for Flicks

Every friday morning, I arrive at work a little early so that I may sit down, drink some bean, and read all of Roger Ebert's reviews for the weekend's slate of new movies. I've done this for as long as I can remember. When I was younger, I would come home from school and read the USA Today's reviews, but have since realized that they just aren't as good as Ebert's. Plus, during his health absence last year, I missed him. Nobody writes better reviews than Ebert. Nobody. Period. He never condescends, never uses "industry" terms, and he always writes in a way that suggests a conversation he might have with a group of eager, young filmgoers.

I realized today just how much I missed him when I read his review for "3:10 To Yuma," to which he gave 4 out of 4 stars. When Ebert awards a film 4 stars (and he hates his star scale, forced upon him by the suits at the Times), it is a time to stand and take notice. He doesn't do it too often, and his tastes may not always be mine, but when he dishes out 4 stars, I have to to give the film a chance and view it through my own, 4-star lenses because Ebert said so.

Speaking of taste, Ebert pretty much dictated my taste in film, save, of course, for his unfavorable review of the original DIE HARD - a review I took personally for many years. I think if Ebert were to revisit this, he would reward it with a more positive review, especially with some of the awful action franchises since.

When I say that he dictated my tastes, let me explain: Ebert LOVES intelligent characters who are true to themselves - not the plot. If a character in a film does something which is only in service of the plot, and not something that seems true to the textures of their character, then Ebert jumps all over it. More than anything, though, Ebert loves when two well-developed, intelligent characters square off, be it in an action film, a drama, or a horror film, and he finds tremendous pleasure in it and even writes his best reviews about it. I think Ebert's love of intelligent characters stems from his love of literature, where a character's motivations are under a much tighter microscope because literature typically unfolds much more deliberately.

So, when a movie takes time to develop two characters, give them a definitive voice, and allows them to interact, it truly is a pleasure and I share Ebert's enthusiasm for it.

In his 3:10 review, he writes a passage that truly gets me excited about the film. It reminded me of his review for "Collateral," one of my favorite flick of the past 10 years. Actually, maybe what Ebert wrote reminded me of my own feelings about Collateral, but what's the difference. In his review, Ebert writes:

"Locked in the hotel room, surrounded by death for one or the other, the two men begin to talk. Without revealing anything of the plot, let me speculate that each has found the first man he has met in years who is his equal in conversation. Crowe and Bale play this dialogue so precisely that it never reveals itself for what it really is, a process of mutual insight."

This is high praise and the type of criticism that I've come to love from Ebert. It gets me excited for this movie and makes me even more happy that Hollywood is taking the time to develop big studio flicks that still observe character development. You'll hear me say this all the time, but there is truly nothing better in film than when two intelligent, well-defined characters square off because by that time, the audience will have invested something in each of them and when that scene comes, where the characters come to understand one another, its amazing.

COP. Golden Oldie.

I have found very few people who have actually seen this movie. From what I understand, the flick had a very short theatrical life in 1987 and even struggled to find much of an audience once on video. That's a shame because it features a fantastic performance by James Woods as a dogged, morally corrupt LA police detective chasing down a particularly nasty serial killer; one whose MO can be traced back to thirty or so murders.

I don't know that the movie itself is even that great; it actually makes you feel a little dirty following around such a morally bankrupt "protagonist," but James Woods is so goddamn magnetic. He's wound-up like '80s stockbroker, only more self-absorbed and coked out of his mind.

Let's stop for a moment to consider James Woods. Here is a guy whose performances vary only slightly from one to the next, and it shows, but it doesn't matter because he invests every single character he plays with an infectious manic energy. This guy should be first in line for every major villain role available. He's that good. He projects intelligence by talking circles around anybody he shares a scene with - talking so fast, with such intensity, that you're sort of worried he might explode. For prime examples of James Woods' talent, check out SALVADOR, GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI, THE HARD WAY (really great here), AGAINST ALL ODDS, THE SPECIALIST (watch him walk off with this godawful movie like he doesn't know its fucking bad).

In COP, he is more than combustible and you sit back awaiting his demise at his own hands, but it doesn't really come. He tracks this killer with such ferocity that it becomes his singular vision to hunt this villain down. He's like an animal looking for that morsel of food which might stave off starvation, but its not desperation, its a maniacal drive. You realize that in hunting all of these criminals and investigating these terrible acts, his psyche has really been altered. This is not scenery chewing and you don't really root for him like you might a Dirty Harry, no, you worry about this guy and the people around him because you'd hate to see others go down with his ship.

There are two scenes that define this movie: One involves Woods, home late one night, divorced from his family, but tucking his young daughter into bed. She asks him to tell her a story and Woods tells her of a brutal case that he's been working on, much to the chagrin of his ex-wife. At first, its a funny scene, but then you realize that this guy wouldn't know a fairy-tale if he were in it and this might be the only story he knows.

The second scene, and it is the film's last, might contain the greatest closing line in the history of film and I'm not exaggerating. Seriously, I am not just getting pumped up in writing this or anything like that - it's really an amazing line and a shocking ending. It perfectly sums up the character and once you get past the badassness of it and consider its implications, you realize just how sick our "protagonist" might be, a sort of depression sets in because you know that you've spent two hours following around a sociopath.

But that line, woooo, it's a piece of work and Woods, well, Woods will have a spot on the Under appreciated List that I'm working on as we speak.

David Cronenberg...Finally

I was never partial to David Cronenberg. I loved THE FLY, in fact, I think it is a classic that holds up considerably well - especially the ending, which still packs an emotional wallop. Aside from it, however, I never took to his films. I thought VIDEOROME could have been much better than it was - a pastiche of very cool ideas and gross effects. SCANNERS is merely ok. For some reason, the movie misses out on all of the huge potential that it has. CRASH truly feels like a porno. Its an uncomfortable movie, it plays uncomfortably - yes, I realize that is its point, but it's not particularly enjoyable on any level (except as a porno). Sure, THE FLY is uncomfortable too, as it plays as an AIDS parable, but it has many cool sci-fi elements that endear it to fans of the life and it also has two compelling characters strongly played by Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum. Goldblum in particular delivers a great performance, one that would be listed on an All-Time Most Under-Appreciated List, were one to be composed. Perhaps I will do that next week.

Aside from THE FLY, I didn't like much about his movies, that is, until, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE hit the screens. I love that movie. I strongly considered it the best film of that year - by far. Viggo Mortensen was fantastic. Marion Bello was amazing and snubbed at the Oscars. But, it was William Hurt, armed with 10 minutes of screen time, who absolutley dominated the film. He was incredible: funny, charming, and creepy. He invests every line with a certain kind of zest that you just don't see as often in acting anymore. It's a real pro's performance. Don't get me wrong, though, the star of that flick was Cronenberg. He was incredibly subdued in his directing - really letting the story and acting play out, while subtly mocking the perverse fascination with grotesque violence - and the suggestion that some problems can only be solved via violent, decisive action.

Now, he is coming back with EASTERN PROMISES and the film's trailer looks completely awesome. Viggo plays a Russian mobster. Naomi Watts plays a midwife. The flick looks like a continuation of the world Cronenberg created in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, just a little less Capraesque. Its a noir and that's a genre that Cronenberg must love because all of his films are variations of it.

So, the whole point here is to tell everyone that Cronenberg is going to be here in NYC, presenting his new flick, and doing a Q&A with the audience. I cannot tell you how amazing I think this will be and I intend on sitting front row. I can guarantee a review of the movie next week, probably thursday or friday.

Rumor has it that Mortensen has a 10-minute fight scene in a bathhouse that is supposedly one of the most brutal fights ever committed to film. I'm pumped here because Cronenberg seems to have entered into that point of his career where he has found a pronounced style to work with and within, a la the Eastwood of late. I'm hoping he and his muse, Mortensen, continue this trend.

Hatchet? Golden Age of Horror? Are you serious?

There was this enormous resurgence in the popularity of horror films in the past few years, but it has since quelled. Credit SAW and the TCM remake for stimulating this spike in horror interest. It seems to happen every few years as horror sort of redefines/resurrects itself in a once popular form. Remember the self-reflexive teeny-bopper flicks of the late nineties, of which only Scream and Scream 2 seem to have aged well? I, personally, consider SCREAM to be a fantastic film - probably the best, most intelligent wink-wink, nod-nod horror film that I can remember. Also, I LOVE the opening sequence and still find it scary to this day. Had the film been able to maintain that sense of dread throughout, it might have really made history, instead of just mocking it. I also think that the flick has one of most well-maintained whodunits in a long time. It gives you so many possible suspects and presents a decent case for all of them. I thought that throughout the series, it did a nice job of suggesting that any of the series mainstays (David Arquette, Courtney Cox) could have been a killer throughout.

As always, I digress. Sorry if you've stopped reading already. I'm getting to it all.

I've heard a lot of talk about HATCHET. I've heard that its the hotness, plain and simple. Harry Knowles wrote a really cool review from the theatre, as he observed the audience, which I think is the best gauge of a film's success. Apparently, the audience absolutely ATE this film up. Then, in the hype, everyone started calling it a "throwback" and a "return to old-school horror." I can appreciate that. I also appreciate the eye-popping gore that everyone is talking about, and the flick's sense of humor, and its knowledge of the genre. I really haven't heard a bad thing yet.

Here's my dilemma, though:

I haven't seen the movie, but I intend to this weekend in NYC. I HATE that everyone is calling this old-school horror. HATE IT. It makes me resent the movie. Golden Age? Fuck that! There was a time in the early eighties when slasher films were churned out like nobody's business. FRIDAY THE 13TH sort of cornered the market. It sucked. Sorry, lovers of Jason and Mrs. Voorhees, but the movies sucked. They were not scary, just over-the-top bloody. Now, I can be a gorehound, though I think Saw III took it to new heights, but those movies in the early eighties generally sucked. THE BURNING? That sucked. THE PROWLER? Sucked. FRIDAY sequels - sucked too. Besides, HALLOWEEN started all of this in '78, and it wasn't gory, just fucking scary as hell. If you really want to get literal, BLACK CHRISTMAS came years before Halloween and was a pretty decent example of the genre it basically created. I also liked TERROR TRAIN and found it to be pretty creepy too. There's A Nightmare on Elm Street, but that's not really the same thing, is it? Although, it regressed to become it.

That's old-school horror. Taking nothing but atmoshpere and film technique and churning out a really visceral experience. SAW? That flick had the worst acting since TROLL 2. It piled on twists and turns in an effort to appear witty, but it was just stupid. Danny Glover did not come out well at all. I swear that people must realize how bad that movie really was. TCM remake? That was a bad movie that had nothing but a gonzo R. Lee Earney playing himself...again. It was brutal and that's about all I can say, aside from jessica Biel's jeans and tanktop.

I just don't see how 80's slasher flicks are the "Old-School" horror? I really don't. If those are the standard that every horror film released is judged by, then every new horror flick will be considered amazing. Seriously. I hear this "golden age" shit all of the time.

So, I will try to go to Hatchet with an open mind, though it does resemble Venom by trailer. And I will update on my reaction.