6 Trailers That Make Lisa Marie Go Yay!

Posted on May 7, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hi everyone!

I will be the first to admit that I can occasionally be a little moody but tonight, as I sit here typing, I am in such a good, extremely hyper mood. Maybe it’s because I’m wearing my beloved black Pirates shirt. Or it could be because, for once, this house is neither too cold nor too warm. Then again, it could just be because it’s time for me to bring you another edition of Lisa Marie’s Favorite Grindhouse and Exploitation Trailers!

1) I Dismember Mama/The Blood-Splattered Bride (1974)

This is a trailer for a “double feature of horror,” featuring I Dismember Mama and The Blood-Splattered Bride. When I’ve spoken with other grindhouse movie fans on the web, this trailer is often cited as being a favorite. Personally, I think it goes along for about a minute too long but I can understand why it’s so popular. For one thing, it’s nothing like the trailers that are currently playing in theaters across America in that it’s a short film in itself. By the way, the trailer for Blood-Splattered bride sans I Dismember Mamma can be viewed here.

2) Killer Nun (1978)

From the wonderful nation of Italy comes this example of the odd little grindhouse genre known as nunsploitation. I can probably count the number of good nunsploitation films on one hand. And yet when confronted with a film like this, I cannot look away. Maybe it’s because I was raised in the Catholic church. Or it could just be because the totally hot and lickable Joe Dallesandro is in so many of them. Along with Dallesandro, Killer Nun features Anita Ekberg of La Dolce Vita fame and Alida Valli of Third Man, Suspiria, and Inferno fame.

(Sidenote: Once when I was going to Catholic school, this really mean, fat girl was jealous of me because I was prettier than her so she whacked me in the face with a ruler so hard that it actually broke the skin right over my right eye and I had to get 3 stitches to close the cut and I’ve still got this little scar and sometimes, when I wink or seductively arch my right eyebrow, it still hurts a little. I hope somebody eventually went all Killer Nun on that girl…)

3) Lady Kung Fu (1972)

When I showed my sister Erin this trailer, she said, “You’re not going to jump up and start trying to do any of that stuff yourself, are you?” “Uhmmm…no,” I replied but, to be honest, I was totally about to do it. I don’t know much about Angela Mao but just, on the basis of this trailer, she’s my hero. This trailer is just infectious and, as I watched, I wondered, “How difficult can it be?” Well, apparently, it’s very difficult but that’s a story for a different time.

4) The Bullet Machine (1969)

“He can hack it!” Uhmmm….well, yes, okay then. At first, I thought I had actually found a trailer that was more violent than the trailer for Massacre Mafia Style but, upon careful reflection, I have to say that Massacre Mafia Style is still the king. The two hitmen in Massacre Mafia Style may not fire as many bullets but they still manage to kill everyone else in the trailer. Whereas The Bullet Machine is constantly shooting his gun but doesn’t really seem to accomplish much as a result. Plus, the mafia hitmen had style whereas the Bullet Machine just seems to be kind of a prick. If ever I have to prove the thesis that most men use guns as a substitute for their own limp penis, this trailer will be exhibit one.

5) Alien 2 (1980)

I don’t know much about this film other than it’s obviously an Italian attempt to capitalize on the success of the original Alien and it is not — as I originally assumed — the same film as Luigi Cozzi’s Alien Contamination. One of the things that I love about Italian exploitation cinema is just the pure shamelessness of it all. I imagine there had to have been about a thousand remakes of Alien in the early 80s but only the Italians would have the balls to actually name a film Alien 2.

As for this trailer, it has its slow spots but seriously, stick with it for the final shot. And remember — you could be next!

(On the plus side, a young Michele Soavi is in this film. YAY!)

6) Fascination (1978)

I’m in such a good mood right now that I’m just going to have to end this latest entry with a little Jean Rollin. Now, just in case anyone out there is unfamiliar with the unique cinematic vision of Jean Rollin, you should understand that this trailer is far more explicit than any of the other trailers featured in this post. In fact, I’m surprised that Youtube hasn’t taken it down yet. So, if you’re easily offended, I don’t know why you would be visiting this site in the first place. But anyways, if you’re easily offended, consider yourself warned.

As for Fascination, it’s actually one of the more accessible of Jean Rollin’s vampire films. The image — seen towards the end of this trailer — of Brigittie LaHaie with a scythe has become iconic.

Quickie Review: Fast Five (dir. by Justin Lin)

Posted on May 1, 2011 by Arleigh

It would seem that the summer blockbuster film season starts earlier and earlier with each passing year. It used to be that the film which premiered during the Memorial Day weekend was the one which began the season, but now films which come out first weekend of May get to have that honor. Then 2011 decides to change things up and herald the summer blockbuster season not in May but the last weekend of April. The film which gets to do the honor this year looks to be Justin Lin’s fun and very action-packed fourth sequel to the undying street-racing franchise which began with 2001’s The Fast and The Furious. This fifth entry in the franchise was simply titled, Fast Five.

The series had always been about the world of illegal street-racing whether it was set in Los Angeles, Miami or Tokyo. There was always that aspect of the story which tied all four previous films together. It would have skilled, beautiful women who followed the scene and, of course, the fast cars themselves. Things began to change a bit with the fourth film, Fast and Furious, as the street racing became not the main focal point of the story but just an aspect of it. The franchise began to take on an action-thriller role. While it was good to see changes to the franchise that began to get stale that fourth film didn’t pull off the necessary changes as well as it should’ve. It would seem that Justin Lin was just testing the waters and finally got what he wanted with Fast Five.

This latest film in the franchise barely has any street-racing in the film. There’s a short sequence 2/3’s of the way in and Lin also inserts a couple of obligatory slo-mo scenes of street-racers gathering to show-off their rides and women, but Fast Five is more of a caper film than a street-racing one. It actually owes a lot more to the Ocean’s 11 films than anything else. We have returning character in Vin Diesel’s Dominic Torreto and his sister Mia (played by the radiant Jordana Brewster). Paul Walker as his erstwhile ally Brian O’Conner returns as well. It’s these three who anchor the heist team which would include returning characters from the previous four films. There’s the hothead Vince (Matt Schulze) from the first film. Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson) and Tej Parker (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges) come in from the second film. Sung Kang’s character Han from the third film appears so does Gisele, Tego and Rico from the fourth film. These returning character make-up what I would only call as Torreto’s Ten.

Fast Five begins just as the previous film ended as O’Conner and Mia break Dom out of the prison bus taking him to prison. From there the film moves to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where these three fugitives take on a job to earn themselves some money only to realize that they’ve inadvertently gone to work for Reyes, Rio’s most powerful crimelord (Joaquim de Almeida), who now has his sights on Dom’s crew. Not to make Dom’s life any easier is a Federal Task Force sent in to take him back to the U.S. in the form of Hobbs (played by Dwayne Johnson) and his elite team of agents. Dom and his crew will now have to escape not just Reyes and his thugs but Hobbs and his men. It’s the plan to do just both that make up most of the film’s story.

Justin Lin does a great job in not just explaining the details of the heist beforehand, but he does so without getting the film into too much of an expository exercise. He shows just as much as tell the job Torreto’s Ten must pull off if they’re to ever win their freedom. It’s the set-up to the heist and the execution of it which tie-in all the many, well-staged action sequences the film has. While street-racing has been relegated to just obligatory short scenes this film doesn’t lack for exciting carmeggedon and mayhem. From the prison bus escape to begin the film to the daring train robbery which follows it right down to the bank vault heist which takes up the last 10-15 minutes of the film. That sequence alone makes this film worth seeing as we see a 10-ton bank vault being hauled at high-speed through the streets of downtown Rio. Buildings get totaled and cars get tossed and smashed like tinker toys. Yet, as the PG-13 rating would point out we don’t know or see if anyone actually dies.

It’s that rating which keeps this film from ever joining the exploitation and grindhouse pedigree of such car mayhem films as Vanishing Point, Two-Lane Blacktop and Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry. But despite the limitations a PG-13 rating puts on Justin Lin’s Fast Five the film ends up becoming a very fun and exhilirating action-heist film that gives some new life to a franchise that was down to fumes. It helped that we get some good performances from most of the leads (Paul Walker still can’t do anything outside of performing as a surfer from California). It was also the addition of Dwayne Johnson as Federal Super-Agent Luke Hobbs which gives the film some of it’s fun. Johnson was able to match Diesel’s Dominic Torreto for the title of most badass in the film. In fact, the fight between the two was one of the highlights of the film (even though I still think Johnson probably would kick Diesel’s ass 100 out of 100 times).

Fast Five doesn’t disappoint and more than earns the honor of starting up 2011’s summer blockbuster season. Justin Lin has delivered a film in this franchise which stands out from the rest and more than likely reboots the series from a street-racing one and into just a plain old action series. His work in this film and how he handled the action also adds some credence and justification in him being given the next film in the Terminator franchise. He may just be the one to bring back some life into that dying franchise. So, strap on the seat belt and grab onto to something because Fast Five may just be one of the few films this summer that delivered on everything it promises in terms of action and fun.

A Quickie With Lisa Marie: The Source Code (dir. by Duncan Jones)

Posted on April 28, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Okay, I’ll admit it right now: I’m way too late in reviewing this film. Seriously, if you were planning on seeing The Source Code, then you’ve probably already seen it by this point. You already have your own opinion about the film. Why do you need hear mine? You’re probably saying, “Girl, move on.”

And to that I say: “I do what I want!”

Anyway…

The Source Code is a surprisingly smart and occasionally even moving little sci-fi thriller. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Colt Stevens, an army helicopter pilot who, as the film begins, awakens to find himself on a commuter train with no idea who he is or how he got there. The woman sitting across from him (played by Michelle Monaghan) seems to know he is. The confused Gyllenhaal wanders around the train trying to figure out who he is. He goes into the train’s restroom, looks in the mirror, and sees a stranger staring back at him. And then the entire train blows up.

Suddenly, Gyllenhaal wakes up again. He’s apparently trapped in a dark chamber with his only link to the outside world being a computer screen. An army officer (Vera Farminga) appears on the screen and explains to him that he was sent into the past in order to find out who bombed the train. And he will continually be sent back into the past to relive the few minutes before the bomb goes off. He’s told that the past cannot be changed, the people on the train cannot be saved, and his only mission is to discover who planted the bomb.

It’s a clever little plot (one that would do Philip K. Dick proud) that has a lot more twists and turns than is obvious from a simple recap. Along with a smart script, the film has a cast who bring a lot of conviction and nuance to their roles. Jake Gyllenhaal, in particular, redeems himself after his unfortunate work in Love and Other Drugs. However, the film’s real hero is director Duncan Jones who gives The Source Code both a heart and a brain. His work here confirms that talent that was evident in Moon and I’m looking forward to what he gives us next.

Lisa Marie Conspires Against The Conspirator (dir. by Robert Redford)

Posted on April 28, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Robert Redford’s new historical drama The Conspirator is the first prestige picture of 2011 and it’s also (arguably) the worst film of the year so far.

Oh, I hear you out there: “Really? Worse than even Season of the Witch and Your Highness?”

Yes. Way worse. Season of the Witch and Your Highness might have been bad films but they knew they were bad. They never truly aspired to be anything other than bad. The problem with The Conspirator is that it’s obviously meant to be a great and important film. It’s meant to shape public debate. We’re supposed to feel like better people for having sat through it and the filmmakers are supposed to be better people just for having made it. There’s a smugness to these type of self-styled “prestige pictures” that elevates their badness beyond anything to be found in Your Highness. Indeed, if the makers of Your Highness appeared to be getting high off of herb than the people behind The Conspirator are high off of their own good intentions and that makes them for more annoying.

The Conspirator is based on the trial of Mary Surratt, the only woman to be arrested, tried, and subsequently executed as a result of the conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. The execution of Mary Surratt was controversial because 1) she was a civilian tried by a military tribunal, 2) the evidence against her was largely circumstantial (she owned the boarding house where the conspirators — including her son John Surratt — supposedly met), and 3) she was a woman.

Now, I have to confess that I’m secretly kind of a big history nerd and — unlike most of this film’s audience — I was already familiar with the story of Mary Surratt before I sat down in the theater. The story of the Lincoln Conspiracy and the aftermath of the assassination is a really interesting one that is full of all sorts of weird twists and turns and odd characters all conspiring together and being mysterious. It has all the makings of a great grindhouse film.

However, director Robert Redford is too good to make a grindhouse movie. No, he has something important to say and, as a result, The Conspirator becomes yet another one of those tedious films where every line of dialogue and every image is supposed to make us go, “Hey, they might be talking about post-Civil War America but, by golly, this is relevent to our post-911 lives! OH MY GOD!” So, we get Tom Wilkinson showing up randomly to give speeches about why military tribunals are the work of the devil. Wilkinson is playing a historical figure Reverdy Johnson but they might as well have just renamed him “Prestige Actor Cast As Mouthpiece.” And then Kevin Kline (as Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, though they should have just called him Dick Cheney) is there to go, “The whole world has changed.” Meanwhile, the camera lingers over the conspirators being held in their dirty cells with bags over their heads (“OH MY GOD, HONEY!” we’re supposed to shout at our loved ones, “THAT’S JUST LIKE GUANTANAMO BAY! WOW!”) and then we’re constantly reminded that Mary Surratt was a devout Catholic and that America in 1865 viewed Catholicism in much the same way that America views Islam in 2011.

And, yeah, we get it and I’m not saying that director Redford is incorrect in his message or his beliefs. However, a boring, heavy-handed film is just as boring and heavy-handed regardless of where its heart may lie. The Conspirator is so busy being good for us that it forgets that it needs to entertain as well. It preaches at us but it never bothers to engage us.

Mary Surratt is played by Robin Wright and she gives a good performance but because of the way the film is structured, Mary is never allowed to become anything more than a convenient symbol. Instead, most of the film’s screen time is given to James McAvoy who plays the young lawyer who reluctantly defends her at trial. Now, I love James McAvoy. I’ve loved him ever since Atonement and that’s why it’s kinda heart breaking to see what a bad performance he gives here. He’s good for the first ten minutes or so of the film but then he’s assigned to defend Ms. Surratt and I swear to God, he doesn’t stop yelling for the rest of the movie. It’s not totally McAvoy’s fault. As written, his character doesn’t really have much to do other than get mad. As an actor, McAvoy can do anger quite well (again, check out Atonement) but here his anger just seems to spring out of nowhere. At first, he is unconcerned about Mary Surratt and resentful that he has to defend her. Then suddenly, he’s going all late style Al Pacino on everyone.

Justin Long shows up as McAvoy’s best friend and seriously, if you’re making a historical drama, you don’t cast a guy who automatically makes you think, “He’s a PC and I’m a Mac.” It’s not Long’s fault. He’s a likable actor and he’s likable here even if his character doesn’t have any reason for being in the movie. It’s just that typecasting is a bitch. Alexis Bedel gets the thankless role of “rich snob who loses faith in her boyfriend” while Evan Rachel Wood, playing Mary Surratt’s daughter, is the only member of the cast who actually seems to truly connect with the material.

Regardless of the film’s historical accuracy, everything about The Conspirator feels false. I don’t know if it was just the copy that I happened to see but the entire movie just looks like crap, a combination of soft-focus blurriness and respectfully muted colors. This is another one of those films where the interior scenes are lit so that it appears that sunlight is just flooding in through the windows, making any white article of clothing just appear to throb with radiation. Seriously, I had a headache after watching 30 minutes of this film.

As I said previously, there’s a great grindhouse movie waiting to be made out of this material. For instance, did you know that Boston Corbett — the man who shot John Wilkes Booth — was also a religious fanatic who years earlier, in order to resist being tempted by a prostitute, castrated himself with scissors? Also, did you know that Henry Rathbone — the army major who was sitting with Lincoln at the time of the assassination — was years later named Ambassador to Germany and, while in Germany, suffered a sudden nervous breakdown that led to him chopping off his wife’s head? Also, one of the men who was arrested (though eventually released and never charged) for taking part in the conspiracy was Frances Tumblety who later moved to England where he would later become one of the many men suspected of being Jack the Ripper?

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

However, The Conspirator is too busy being important to bother with being interesting. While a grindhouse version of the story would have been both interesting and thought-provoking, The Conspirator is just a smug film that is never manages to live up to its own rather high opinion of itself.

Film Review: Scream 4 (dir. by Wes Craven)

Posted on April 24, 2011 by Leonard Wilson

Before I start, note that Scream 4 is also referred to as Scre4m. While this is true and cool in a hacking/cyberpunk sort of way, I refuse to call it that as it just erodes my writing ability (which is rough enough as it is). I keep that up by the end of the year, everything I write will have numbers in it.

Compared to some of his earlier attempts, Scream 4 is pretty much a triumph for Wes Craven. With Kevin Williamson’s help, they manage to take the fourth part of a story and turn it into something remarkably enjoyable and surprising. The audience at my showing loved the way it started and ended. Although it retreads some of the older themes of the series, it does so in a way that almost makes fun of itself and the genre it’s a part of. Since it’s not taking itself too seriously, the audience doesn’t have to either.

Scream 4 basically brings what’s left of the remaining cast back to the tale. The Arquette’s (Courtney Cox and David) have returned as Gail Weathers-Riley and Sheriff Dewey Riley, respectively. Neve Campbell returns to form after a long hiatus, and really, it’s almost as if none of them ever left. The film starts off in a way where it pays homage to the original Drew Barrymore opening while still managing to keep it fresh. Cameos by Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell help to move that along.

After the events of the last three films (ten years of time in the movie), Sidney Prescott (Campbell) has managed to put her life back together by writing a novel about being a survivor. Thanks to Gail’s book on the Woodsboro murders and the multiple “Stab” movies that were created for them, the town has become famous for something it really shouldn’t be. Ghostface masks are a dime a dozen now, yearly Stab marathons are all the rage and the town kind of looks at it all like Crystal Lake – people died there, sure, but it’s just so much to say “I was there!”.

Sidney’s fame did little for her niece, Jill (Emma Roberts) and her friends, Kirby (a short hairdo wearing Hayden Panettiere) and Olivia (Marielle Jaffe). Having to grow up as a relative to the most famous person in town means everyone has something to ask her about Sidney when she returns to Woodsboro on her book tour. The younger trio keep their distance from Sidney as they consider her trouble. After all, all these deaths seem to occur when she’s around or has something to do with her. However, when a new rash of murders start when Sidney arrives, everyone has something to worry about. What follows is a bloodbath in typical Scream fashion, and as always, just about everyone is a suspect.

The Positives:

– Conspiracy Theory

What worked for me in Scream 4 was the conspiracy aspect. Williamson paints a picture that basically says “Here’s your cast. Any one of them could be the killer. Can you figure out who?”. The misdirection isn’t on a Harry Potter like level, but it does serve a purpose here. By the time everything was brought out, I found myself nodding and smiling. It’s actually worth it to ride out the movie to get to the big reveal. Without giving anything away, both that reveal and the story behind it was damn near excellent.

-Sidney as Ripley

Another good thing about the film is that Sidney is pretty much a powerhouse here. She takes on the Ghostface without too much fear. So much so that it sometimes seems like she’s like a Jason Bourne type character. It’s nice that she’s able to hold her own, though after 3 films, you’d expect the character to probably do that.

– Remembering the Original

Another element that proved useful was the homages to the original Scream films. There are a few scenes that even if you only watched the Original Scream, you’ll recognize them instantly. Some serious recognition goes to Panettiere’s Kirby, who at one point spits out the name of nearly 30 horror films in the space of a minute. All in all, it might seem like rehashing, but the context they were set up in were enough to warrant a whispered “Wow” from me. Maybe I’m just easily impressed. Craven also managed to bring back Roger L. Jackson (Mojo Jojo from The Powerpuff Girls) as the voice of the Ghostface Killer. So much fun to hear his voice again after all these years. That was definitely a plus.

The Negatives:

– Not a lot of Bodies Hitting the Floor.

If Scream 4 suffers from any problems, it’s that there really isn’t that much of a body count. Granted, I wasn’t expecting anything like Dead Alive or Dawn of the Dead, but as slasher films go, it’s pretty light on the numbers, and as always, most of the people who are dispatched are done well, but I left the theatre wondering if there weren’t just a few more people who could have been taken out. That, and outside of the main players, I didn’t really care about the rest of the cast. They were pretty much cannon fodder for Ghostface.

– The Rules have Changed, but aren’t Exactly Enforced

While the movie seemed to be big on changing what the rules for how horror movies go, they weren’t really mind-blowing. In some ways, it seemed it was useful, but perhaps it would have been better to simply say that there were no rules and leave it at that. The rules here didn’t seem as enforced as the first film. Anything kind of goes.

Overall, Scream 4 is a fun ride, and quite possibly the best entry in the series since the first Scream. It peppers original elements with a few new ideas. It’s not all perfect and there some moments that are over the top, but in the end, it’s refreshing when compared to the 2nd and 3rd parts of the series.

Film Review: Insidious (dir. by James Wan)

Posted on April 23, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I wasn’t expecting much from Insidious, the new horror film that’s recieved a surprising amount of critical acclaim over the past month. After all, the film is the product of a collaboration between the makers of Saw and Parnormal Activity, two of the most overrated horror films ever. Add to that, the movie is rated PG-13 and the lesson I took away from seeing The Roommate earlier this year was that PG-13 dooms horror. Insidious might be the proverbial exception that proves the rule.

As with all good horror films, Insidious starts with a deceptively simple premise. Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne play a married couple whose marriage is thrown into choas when their oldest son slips into what appears to be a coma. After three months of being in the hosptial, their son is moved back into their house where he spends his days lying in bed, hooked up to ominous medical equipment.

(Speaking for myself, there is no more disturbing sound than the sound of heart monitor, because for every beep, there’s that moment of deafening silence between beeps. The film’s director James Wan knows this too because he makes brilliant use of sound in this film.)

While Wilson deals with things by finding excuses to stay late at work, Byrne is soon seeing shadowy figures running through the house and hearing voices coming from empty rooms. Even as Wilson continues to insist that its just her imagination (that’s something all men seem to have in common — they never ask for direction and they always refuse to accept that the house is haunted), Byrne becomes more and more convinced that its not. Eventually, with a help of an eccentric psychic (well-played by Lin Shaye), Wilson and Byrne are forced to confront the evil forces that have taken control of their lives.

Let’s get the most important thing out of the way first.

Insidious is one scary movie. It’s scarier than any movie rated PG-13 has any right to be. It scared me when I was sitting in the theater watching it and, even more importantly, it’s still scary a day later.

Let me set the scene for you. As I sit here writing this, it is nearly 3 in the morning. I live in a two-story house that is full of random cold spot and which, for some reason, never seems to be totally lit even with all the lights on. My friends are with their families for Easter. My sister Erin is currently in Arlington, visiting with our other sister, Melissa. I’m in this house alone with only my overactive imagination keeping me company. Oh, did I mention that, because of some foundation issues, this house tends to randomly creak?

About two hours ago, I had just taken a shower and I was sitting, wrapped in a towel and a blow dryer, on the edge of my bed. I have this antique floor mirror that sits a few feet in front of my bed and I was about to start drying my hair when it suddenly occured to me — what if I looked at the mirror and I suddenly saw a dark shadow — like the ones in Insidious — sitting on the bed directly behind me?

And yes, I knew that was a silly thought just like I know, despite what the Insidious might tell us, there’s no such thing as ghosts and demons. I knew that if I rasied my head, I would not see anything but isolated, vulnerable little me reflected in the mirror.

But, God help me, I could not bring myself to look. Because, even though I knew that there was 99.9% chance that nothing would be sitting behind me, I knew that there was 0.1.% chance that something would be. I sat there, almost paralyzed with my heart pounding so hard I could almost hear it. I realized I was starting to breathe faster, knowing that if there was something there, it was there with me at that exact moment, siting behind me, waiting to strike…

Finally, realizing that I was on the verge of giving myself a very real panic attack over a very unreal possibility, I forced myself to look up at the reflection in the mirror.

A dark shadow was sitting directly behind me.

And I screamed and jumped off that bed so quickly that I’m amazed I actually managed to stay on my feet. I swung around, cluthing that blow dryer like a weapon, prepared to do whatever…

Nobody was sitting on the bed.

Slowly, I creeped across the room. Cautiously, I stuck a foot underneath my bed to feel if anything was hiding underneath it. I opened the closests and pushed my clothes to the side to confirm that nobody was hiding behind them.

Finally, after I somehow found the courage to sit back down on the bed, I realized that there had indeed been a shadow behind me and that shadow, because of the angle of the lights in my room, had been mine.

That’s the type of film Insidious is. It’s the type of film that uses the simple things that scare us — the unexplainable noises, the things that you sometimes think you see out of the corner of your eye — to creates a truly macabre experience that sicks with you. At its best, its a truly creepy film that works its way into your imagination through a perfect combination of atmosphere and paranoia. One reason why the haunted house genre has remained such a dependable horror set up is because it perfectly reflects one of our most basic fears — the fear of having no control, of knowing that there is no place to hide, that the forces of chaos and evil can even get to us in the sanctuary of our own homes. Especially during its first half, Insidious exploits this fear perfectly. James Wan’s camera prowls through the otherwise unremarkable suburban home like a creature possessed and you find yourself spotting shadowy figures and sudden movements in every frame that flickers before your eyes. Wan makes remarkably good use of sound here. I realize that sound of silence may be an oxymoron but if silence can make a sound, then director Wan manages to capture it in Insidious.

A lot of critics and filmgoers have been rather critical of the film’s second half and it is true that the second half if remarkably different from the first. If the first half finds Wan concentrating on atmopshere then the second half concentrates on shock and, as a result, it feels a lot more conventional. During the 2nd half of them, we learn just what exactly is happening and why and unfortunately, no possible solution could hope to compete with the sense of dread that the first part of the movie generated. That doesn’t mean that the second half of the movie isn’t well-executed. It is. It’s just not as surprising as the first half.

(However, there is one scene in that 2nd half — a red-skinned demon cheerfully sharpening his finger nails — that is just so bizarre and disturbing that it borders on genius.)

Now, I will admit (POSSIBLE SPOILER COMING UP DEPENDING ON HOW ANAL YOU ARE) that I was not a huge fan of the film’s ending. It’s not that the ending didn’t work or that it wasn’t well-exectued. It’s just that it’s the same type of ending that we’ve come to expect from all horror films, the type of thing that used to be considered a twist but now is just a cliche.

Still, ending aside, Insidious is an effective, little horror film. While it is true that the film rather liberally borrows from a lot of previous horror films (most blatantly from Poltergiest, Mario Bava’s Shock, an Australian film called Patrick, and an excellent Canadian shocker called The Changeling), Wan still takes all of those familiar elements and molds them into a genuinely scary experience.

Film Review: Win Win (dir. by Thomas McCarthy)

Posted on April 20, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

When I watched the pilot episode of Game Of Thrones, I got very excited when I saw that Thomas McCarthy was credited as the director. Now, McCarthy isn’t a household name but chances are, you’ve seen him. He played the plagiarist journalist in the final season of The Wire. He was John Cusack’s romantic rival in 2012. He was nominated for an Academy Award for co-writing the Pixar film Up. However, McCarthy has received most of his critical acclaim as the director of low-key, character dramas like The Station Agent and The Visitor. I have to admit that I was shocked to see McCarthy’s name linked to Game of Thrones because, with the exception of Peter Dinklage, it appeared to have nothing in common with his previous films. Well, turns out that I wasn’t the only one who thought that because apparently, despite McCarthy being credited as the director, the majority of the pilot was actually reshot (quite well) by Tim Van Patten.

So, you might not be seeing Thomas McCarthy’s work on television but fortunately, you can still catch it in the movie theaters. McCarthy’s latest film is a surprisingly poignant comedy called Win Win.

InWin Win, Mike (played by Paul Giamatti) is an attorney who works and lives in small New Jersey town. Mike is married to Jackie (Amy Ryan), owns a big house, helps to coach the high school’s mediocre wrestling team, and can’t pay his bills. Rather than let his family know that he’s on the verge of going broke, Mike instead becomes the legal guardian of one of his clients, the increasingly senile Leo (Burt Young). In return to acting as Leo’s guardian, Mike receives a payment. He also promises to take care of Leo so that Leo doesn’t have to enter a nursing home. However, since Mike is played by Paul Giamatti, it doesn’t come as much of a shock that Mike promptly moves Leo out of his home and into the nursing home. Leo, however, is too senile to understand that he’s being taken advantage of and all of Mike’s second thoughts disappear as soon as he gets the first check.

However, things get complicated once Leo’s delinquent grandson Kyle (Alex Shaffer) shows up looking for his grandfather. Mike takes Kyle to see Leo and soon finds out that Kyle’s mother (and Leo’s daughter) Jill (Melanie Lynesky) is currently in drug rehab and Kyle has nowhere to go. Reluctantly, he and Jackie agree to allow Kyle to stay with their family until his mother gets out of rehab.

While Kyle, at first, seems to just be an inarticulate drop out, he quickly reveals to himself to actually be a very intelligent (if very angry) young man. Even better, from Mike’s point-of-view, Kyle is a former wrestling champion. Mike arranges for Kyle to enroll in the local high school and join the wrestling team. With Kyle now on the team, they actually start to win matches. Suddenly, everything is starting to look up for Mike. He’s a town hero, Jackie starts to bond with Kyle, and Leo remains unaware of how Mike is taking advantage of him.

And then, Kyle’s mom shows up and everything pretty much goes to Hell.

Win Win is the latest entry in the genre of film known as Paul Giamatti Has A MidLife Crisis. The fact that the film remains interesting despite being the thousandth time that we’ve seen Giamatti have a midlife crisis is a tribute to both McCarthy’s intelligent script and Giamatti’s excellent lead performance. Giamatti could play these roles in his sleep and the fact that he doesn’t is what makes him such a consistently interesting character actor. Giamatti gets strong support from Shaffer and especially Ryan. However, my favorite performance in the film came from Bobby Cannavale, who plays Giamatti’s loyal if somewhat dull-witted best friend. Cannavale shows that you can give a very smart performance playing dumb and hopefully, his performance here well lead to greater things for him.

Now, I have to admit — I know nothing about wrestling. Actually, I know less than nothing about wrestling. And, to be honest, I really don’t care if I ever know anything about it. Yet this film, which centered around wrestling, held my attention because McCarthy, as a director, uses the wrestling story to portray something universal. His direction here is never flashy nor is it technically perfect. (To be honest, I counted three appearances by the boom mic.) McCarthy isn’t a polished director but that lack of polish works to this film’s advantage. He may not have been the right director for Game of Thrones but he was obviously just what Win Win needed.

Lisa Marie Does Jane Eyre (dir. by Cary Fukunaga)

Posted on April 19, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hey, ladies! Did your man make you sit through Battle Los Angeles? Did he spend the whole time going, “Oh Hell yeah!” every time something exploded? Did he insist on repeatedly going, “Hoorah!” after the movie ended?

You want to get revenge? Well, here’s what you’re going to do. You’re going to go up to him and you’re going to tell him, in the sweetest way possible, that he’s going to take you to see the latest film adaptation of Jane Eyre. Tell him that this is a revisionist take on the story and that its full of scenes of lesbian flirtation between Jane and Helen. Of course, that’s a lie but this is the same guy who just gave you a card for Valentine’s Day. You don’t owe him a damn thing.

And who knows? He might find something to enjoy in Jane Eyre because it’s one of the best films of 2011 so far. (Though I doubt it because Jane Eyre really is an unapologetic chick flick.)

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre is one of those books that has a timeless appeal to it. I don’t know if it was the first novel to feature a young governess isolated in a creepy mansion but it certainly set the standard that all other gothic romances would have to meet. The first film version was a silent film from 1910 and since then, Jane Eyre and the enigmatic Mr. Rochester have been played by everyone from Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles to Susannah York and George C. Scott to Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. In this latest version, Jane is played Mia Wasikowska and Rochester by Michael Fassebender and the end result is probably the best film version of Jane Eyre to date.

With a few notable exceptions, the film is faithful to Bronte’s book. Jane is an orphan who, after being mistreated by her wealthy aunt (Sally Hawkins, cast very much against type), is sent away to a “charity school” where she is again mistreated and abused until finally, she turns 18 and she leaves the school to take a job as the governess for a young French girl named Adele (Romy Settbon Moore). Adele is the ward of the mysterious, arrogant, surly, but oh so hot Mr. Rochester. Though Rochester is, at first, a rather fearsome employer, he soon starts to warm up to Jane and the two of them defy the 19th century class system by falling in love. However, not everything is perfect. Jane discovers that Rochester has secrets of his own and then there’s the constant sound of footsteps and moaning that seem to echo through the old mansion late at night. Fires are mysteriously set. A guest is savagely attacked in his sleep. When Jane discovers the truth, she also discovers that nothing is as perfect as it seems.

One reason why the original novel has remained such an important work (and one that is still readable as opposed to say, The Scarlet Letter) is because Bronte used her narrative to tell several different stories. Me, I’ve always related to the character of Jane and her struggle to maintain her independence in a society where women are not encouraged to think for themselves. Others see the story as an early soap opera, a melodramatic romance in which true love conquers all. There’s also an argument to be made that the book is primarily meant to be an examination of the 19th century British class system. Of course, if that’s all a bit too much for you, you can always just read Jane Eyre as an early “haunted house” story.

The genius of this latest film adaptation is to be found in the way that director Cary Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini brings all of these various themes to life while still crafting a compelling and entertaining movie out of them. Perhaps the biggest change they made is to begin their film near the book’s conclusion. They then proceed to tell the story of Jane’s childhood and romance with Rochester through flashback, a move that recreates the book’s ground-breaking 1st person narration (ground breaking because, before Jane Eyre, it was rare that any female character was allowed to tell her own tale). While some may complain that the 1st half of the book is pretty much reduced down to 15 minutes of screen time, Fukunaga and Buffini pick their scenes carefully and, most importantly. the essence of Bronte’s narrative comes through if not the exact details.

As a director, Fukunaga plays up the gothic aspects of the story. Whenever Jane ventures outside, the skies are overcast and you can almost literally feel the chill of a desolate wind. Meanwhile, the interior scenes are so full of menacing shadows and expressionistic camera angles that Fukunaga’s film almost feels like the noir version of Jane Eyre. By doing so, this Jane Eyre becomes not just a prototypical gothic love story but instead, it becomes a true coming-of-age story with the mysteries of Mr. Rochester coming to symbolize the mysteries of life itself.

Fukanaga is helped by some excellent performances. Jamie Bell and Judi Dench — playing a clergyman and a housekeeper respectfully — both bring life to characters that have been reduced to stereotypes in previous versions of this story. Fassebender is a perfect Rochester, displaying both strength and weakness in equally believable measures. However, the film’s success or failure obviously lies with Mia Wasikowska’s performance in the title role and this is Jane Eyre’s crowning triumph. Wasikowska gives a fiercely, intelligent performance. Her Jane is strong-willed, indepedent, and intelligent without ever becoming so idealized as to be unbelievable. If Jane Eyre was the first strong woman to appear in literature, Wasikowska gives a performance that is equally strong. There have been over 20 Jane Eyres since 1910 and Mia Wasikowska may very well be the best.

With Love, 6 Trailers From Lisa Marie and Evelyn

Posted on April 16, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

So, last night, I was feeling a bit down for a number of reasons so my BFF Evelyn came over and we had a little slumber party of sorts in my living room. And before everyone does a double take and accuses me of trying to be all like Paris Hilton, let me just explain that when we refer to each other as being “BFFs,” we’re not just being sincere but we’re being postmodernly satiric. It’s kind of the same principle behind why me and my sister Erin tends to casually toss around the word “bitch” whenever we’re having a conversation. Of course, “BFF” doesn’t inspire quite the same reaction from the older folks at the family reunion as “bitch” does but that’s a whole other story.

Anyway, as I informed everyone earlier on twitter, Evelyn and I did all the usual things that you do at a slumber party. We stripped down to our underwear, watched horror movies, ate food that we shouldn’t have eaten, had a violent pillow fight, and swore that we would never reveal the divine secrets of the ya ya sisterhood. I also recruited her to look through all the possible picks for the latest edition of Lisa Marie’s Favorite Grindhouse and Exploitation Film Trailers and help me narrow them down to just 6 trailers.

This, she helped me down without (too much) complaint. Though it may not always be apparent, deciding which 6 trailers to feature each week is actually a pretty long and thorough process and it’s one that can be very tedious if you’re not a fan of these movies. I think a lot of people would have said, “Who cares? Just toss up 6 random trailers and be done with it.” Not Evelyn. Even as I forced her to watch some really odd and kinda disturbing trailers, she stuck with it until we had this week’s 6 trailers. She even put up with me explaining to her why a certain trailer was more grindhouse than another. And that is one of the many reasons why I love Evelyn and why she’ll always be my BFF.

And here’s the 6 trailers that she helped me pick for this week…

1) Stigma (1972)

Okay, Evelyn and me both literally fell in love with this trailer from the minute we heard that narrator say “The curse that begins with a kiss.” Needless to say, we both jumped to a conclusion as to what that curse was and let’s just say it wasn’t syphilis. But anyway, this appears to be some sort of cross between an old educational short and a blaxploitation film. I haven’t seen this film yet and hadn’t even heard of it until I came across the trailer but now, it has become one of my obsessions. I must see Stigma. I must find out about the curse that begins with a kiss…

2) The Magic Garden of Stanley Sweetheart (1970)

Wow, isn’t that just the most annoying title ever? It just screams “FILM SCHOOL GRADUATE!” at the top of its trust funded lungs. Still, this trailer does have one line that made me laugh out loud and that line was: “Where am I going?” Otherwise, this trailer is also memorable for the horrid “gingerbread” song that plays over the first few clips . Evelyn claims that the song is now stuck in her head, which is pretty bad since the entire song is basically “something something gingerbread something something gingerbread…” Evelyn thinks that Stanley (played by Don Johnson of A Boy and His Dog and The Harrad Experiment) looks hot in this trailer. I think he’s a little bit too much of a pretty boy. Neither one of us can believe that he later grew up to be the redneck in Machete.

3) Death Journey (1976)

Fred Williamson is …. Jesse Crowder! Despite our different feelings concerning the appeal of Stanley Sweetheart, both Evelyn and I agreed that Jesse Crowder would kick his scrawny little ass. That said, I objected to the “I’m going to bruise you up a little” line towards the end of the trailer but Evelyn defended it, making the argument that Crowder would have bruised up a man with a knife as well.

4) Rivals (1972)

“It could have been … a love story.” Much like Stigma, this is a case of us just falling in love with a overdramatic tag line. Apparently, the film itself appears to be a grindhouse version of Cyrus.

5) Zachariah (1971)

We had to include Zachariah because, as the trailer explains, this was the world’s first electric western. Add to that, Don Johnson looks a bit less fancy here than he did as Stanley Sweetheart.

6) Get Carter (1971)

We saved the best for last. Now, I know that the original Get Carter is such a classic (especially when compared to the Stallone version) that you might wonder if it really belongs here. Well, trust me, it does. Get Carter is pure grindhouse art and this trailer proves it. Plus, both me and Evelyn were surprised and delighted to discover that once upon a time, Michael Caine was quite the sexy beast. When, at the end of the trailer, we were told to “Get Carter before he gets you,” we both responded with, “Carter can have us.”

Lisa Marie Hates Your Highness (dir. by David Gordon Green)

Posted on April 14, 2011 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I saw the new “comedy” Your Highness a few days ago. I say “comedy” because I’ve been told that the film is supposed to be a “comedy.” Usually, however, a comedy also inspires a certain amount of laughter and I laughed exactly one time while watching Your Highness. I can’t remember what joke it was that made me laugh. Maybe I just couldn’t believe that this film had been made in the first place.

The film is meant to be a satire on all of the fantasy films that have come out in recent years. Danny McBride plays a cowardly prince who goes on a quest to rescue his brother’s fiancée from an evil warlock. (The brother is played by my future lover, James Franco. ) During the quest … oh Hell, who cares? The film’s idea of a joke is to have various character say “shit” and “fuck” while wandering around in a suit of armor. Apparently, this joke is so hilarious that it pops up every 3 minutes or so. This movie is kinda like an annoying 5 year-old who doesn’t understand that we’ve all heard his freaking knock knock joke before.

Definitely, if someone tries to convince you to see this film, run. Personally, I watched it because James Franco is in the film but Franco’s hotness is obscured by a really bad wig. Natalie Portman’s in this film as well, giving a surprisingly good comedic performance, and — check it out, boys! — you get to see her in a thong. That’s right. The boys get one of the best actresses of modern times in a thong while me? I get James Franco with his undeniable sexiness buried underneath a lot of hair. It doesn’t seem quite fair.