Back to School #65: Mean Girls (dir by Daniel Waters)

Posted on September 20, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Mean Girls is a film that has a lot of nostalgic importance for me. It came out when I was a senior in high school and it was the last film that I saw before I graduated. So, for me, Mean Girls always brings back memories of the excitement of knowing that my “real” life was about begin. When I watch it or think about it, I’m always transported back to that time when the future seemed limitless. I knew I was going to go to college, I was going to meet the love of my life, and I was going to have a great time doing it. Thoughts of Mean Girls transports me back to one of the most exciting times of my life and, for that reason, I like to think of it.

Add to that, Mean Girls happens to still be a pretty funny and perceptive movie.

One thing that I do always find interesting about films like Mean Girls and 10 Things I Hate About You is that, even though they may be critical of the traditions of high school, they all seem to be taking place in the type of idealized high school that we all wish that we could have attended. These high schools are always huge with brightly colored walls and quick-witted students who never have a bad hair day. The rich, popular kids are always so clever with the way that they express their disdain. And even the outcasts are still pretty good-looking. Even more importantly, the outcasts are always so sarcastic and political. They don’t just accept their outcast status. Instead, they spend all of their spare time plotting ways to overthrow the system. Perhaps best of all, all of the various cliques have such clever nicknames.

From my experience, most public high schools aren’t actually like this. Then again, I went to high school in Texas and most of these films were made in California so maybe it’s just a west coast thing. The important thing about a film like Mean Girls is that, even though it takes place in a heightened reality, there’s still enough reality that anyone watching it can relate to the film’s story.

(It’s been my experience that even real life mean girls love Mean Girls, mostly because I think everyone assumes that in high school, they were one of the clever, sarcastic outcasts, regardless of whether they actually were.)

In Mean Girls, the popular clique is nicknamed the Plastics and they’re led by Regina George (Rachel McAdams). New student Cady (Lindsay Lohan) is the latest member of the clique but what the Plastics do not suspect is that Cady is actually an infiltrator who has been recruited by outcasts Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damien (Daniel Franzese) to take down the Plastics from the inside. However, as Cady goes out of her way to destroy Regina’s reputation and turn the rest of the school against her, she soon discovers that she’s running the risk of becoming just as mean as Regina…

Mean Girls is a comedy but, at its center, there rests a very important message about the need for people to not … well, to not be mean. That may seem like a simplistic message and I guess it is. But it’s still a good message to get out. The script by Tina Fey is both clever and funny, deftly mixing the message with the comedy. Finally, the film has a great cast, with Lindsay Lohan and Rachel McAdams as stand-outs and great supporting turns from Amanda Seyfried, Lacey Chabert, and Tim Meadows.

Thanks for the memories, Mean Girls!

Lisa’s Homestate Reviews: New Mexico and A Million Ways To Die In The West

Posted on June 22, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

My family lived in Carlsbad, New Mexico from January of 1991 to July of 1992. I was only 5 years old when we arrived and 6 when we left so I really can’t say that I remember that much about Carlsbad, beyond the fact that my mom was always worried about rattlesnakes, I was excited about going to kindergarten and that, when my Dad announced that we were moving to Oklahoma, I cried and cried because, even at that age, I knew that meant I’d never get to see my friends again.

So yeah, some of my memories of New Mexico are a little traumatic. But are they as traumatic as watching Seth McFarlane’s A Million Ways To Die In The West, a film that was shot in New Mexico and which is an early front-runner for claiming the title of worst of 2014?

Written by, produced by, directed by, and starring Seth McFarlane, A Million Ways To Die In The West tells the story of a sheep farmer named Albert (played by Seth McFarlane) who basically spends the entire movie whining about how much he hates living in the old west. His girlfriend leaves him for … well, look, the plot is stupid. You knew the plot was going to be stupid when you first saw the trailer earlier this year. You probably even knew the film wasn’t going to be that good. However, as bad as you might think the film is, it’s nothing compared to how bad the movie actually is. And the blame pretty much rests with Seth McFarlane.

Seth McFarlane has got cold, dead eyes and a curiously unlined face that, when taken along with his ever-present smirk, tends to make him look like one of those horror movie mannequins that comes to life once the store closes and murders horny teenagers. I understand that it’s always been a part of McFarlane’s act to present himself as being an asshole with a heart of gold but, for the most part, that works best when you only have to deal with his voice. The minute that you see his smug face, which is as immobile as his voice is expressive, the heart of gold part disappears. All your left with is an asshole who insists on telling the same joke over and over again. As both a comedic writer and director, McFarlane’s technique is to basically beat the audience into submission, dragging jokes out to such an interminable length that you eventually laugh because you simply cannot believe that you’re wasting so much time watching this crap. Some people have mistaken that technique for genius. Those people should be forced to watch A Million Ways To Die In The West in much the same way that Malcolm McDowell was forced to watch violent movies in A Clockwork Orange.

(And I write all of that as perhaps the only woman in the world who was not offended by Seth McFarlane singing The Boob Song at the Academy Awards, if just because the joke was clearly meant to be at the expense of McFarlane and the overage frat boys who seem to make up his fan base.)

A Million Ways to Die In The West is full of familiar faces. Liam Neeson goes totally overboard as the film’s villain. Neil Patrick Harris, as usual, is fun to watch, or at least he is until he’s forced to take part in one of McFarlane’s trademark endless musical numbers. Eventually, Harris’s character gets slipped a laxative and it’s just as disgusting as it sounds. Giovanni Ribisi plays McFarlane’s best friend and his joke is that he’s a Christian (yes, Seth takes on Christianity — what a rebel!) and that his girlfriend (Sarah Silverman, who deserves better) is a prostitute who is willing to have sex with everyone but him. Amanda Seyfried has the thankless task of playing McFarlane’s girlfriend while Charlize Theron plays the enigmatic woman who teaches Seth how to shoot a gun. (Theron gives a far better performance than this movie deserves and it was hard not to wish that the entire film had just been about her character.) There are also several celebrity cameos — Ryan Reynolds, Christopher Lloyd, and even Jamie Foxx show up.

But, ultimately, the entire film is about Seth McFarlane. He wrote it, he directed it, and he stars in it. Seth McFarlane dominates this film and that’s the problem. What might be slightly amusing in a 22-minute cartoon is not going to be funny enough to sustain a nearly two-hour film. For a rambling and often aimless film like A Million Way To Die In The West to succeed, it needs a star who is both skilled at comedy and likable enough that he’ll be able to anchor the mayhem. (Seth Rogen, for instance.) Instead, we’re given a smirking Seth McFarlane and the end result is a film that somehow manages to be both forgettable and a disaster.

Now, you may be wondering how I ended up watching this film. Well, originally I wasn’t planning on ever seeing it but then I started to read reviews about how terrible it was and I was like, “This is a film that I definitely need to see for myself, so that I can see if the film is actually a misunderstood masterpiece or if it’s a film that I’m going to have to keep in mind when I’m compiling my annual list of the year’s worst films.” (Plus, when I arrived at the theater, The Fault In Our Stars was sold out.) But anyway, I sat through it and I forced my sister Erin to watch it with me and I think Erin may be on the verge of finally forgiving me.

Finally, what was more traumatic? Leaving behind my friends or watching this movie?

Too close to call.

Film Review: Lovelace (dir by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman)

Posted on August 17, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

About halfway through the new biopic Lovelace, there’s a scene where former porno actress Linda Lovelace (played by Amanda Seyfried) is hooked up to a lie detector. The polygraph examiner explains that he’s going to ask Linda a few test questions to get a reading.

“Is your name Linda Lovelace?” he asks.

Visibly nervous, Linda replies, “Can you ask something simpler?”

It’s a great scene because it establishes the central mystery of both the film and the title character.

Just who exactly was Linda Lovelace?

A girl whose main talent was apparently giving head, Lovelace became a star in the 70s when she starred in Deep Throat, the first (and perhaps only) hardcore film to become a legitimate mainstream hit. For a brief while, Lovelace was the face of the American sex industry. However, her attempts to have a mainstream film career failed and Lovelace retreated into obscurity.

Several years later, she wrote a book called Ordeal. In Ordeal, Lovelace claimed that she was forced, by her abusive husband, to perform in Deep Throat. Whereas Lovelace, during her brief stardom, originally claimed to simply be a sexual adventurer who performed on camera because it was liberating, the post-stardom Lovelace presented herself as being a brainwashed victim. Or, as Lovelace herself put it, “When you watch Deep Throat, you’re watching me getting raped.” While several people disputed the authenticity of Ordeal, Lovelace herself passed a polygraph examination. Lovelace then became an anti-pornography activist before, once again, descending into obscurity and eventually dying in an automotive accident in 2002.

Lovelace deals with the issue of figuring out just who Linda Lovelace was by basically telling her story twice.

During the first 45 minutes of the film, we see how young Linda Boreman first meets Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard). Everything about Chuck — from his mustache to his perm to his flashy clothes — practically screams sleaze but, since he’s played by Peter Sarsgaard, he also has an undeniable charm. (With this film and An Education, Sarsgaard has proven himself to be the definitive older man who your parents warned you about.) Chuck and Linda eventually marry and, when they need money, Linda turns to “acting” in order to pay the bills.

Under the watchful eye of producers Bobby Cannavale and Chris Noth, director Hank Azaria, and co-star Adam Brody, Linda stars in Deep Throat and becomes the face of the sexual revolution. While there are occasional hints that things might not be perfect (bruises are often visible on Linda’s arms and legs), Linda seems to truly love the spotlight. Even Hugh Hefner (played by James Franco, who is way too hot to only have a cameo) says she’s going to be a huge star.

And then, rather abruptly, we jump forward six years. Linda is now writing Ordeal and we once again see how she first married Chuck Traynor, starred in Deep Throat, and came to be a star.. However, we now see the story through her eyes. We see that Chuck wasn’t just controlling but that he was also an abusive psychopath who would hold a gun to her head in order to get a performance out of her. We see that, during the shooting of Deep Throat, she was regularly beaten by her husband. We see Linda attempting to reconnect with her strict and tradition parents (played by Sharon Stone and Robert Patrick). We see the ugliness that was hidden underneath the glamour.

Considering the subject matter and the talent involved, Lovelace should have been one of the most interesting films of 2013 but, unfortunately, the two separate halves of the film just don’t come together. While the first half of the film does a good job of capturing the absurdity of sudden fame, the second half of the film falls apart.

Oddly enough, Chuck Traynor and Linda Lovelace only come across as real human beings during the superficial first half of the film. During the second half of the film, both Chuck and Linda come across as one-dimensional ciphers. Linda becomes such a total victim and Chuck becomes such a melodramatic villain that neither one of them is all that compelling as a character. Instead of being disturbing and revealing, the second half of the film just feels like another generic film about the price of fame.

Most of what I know about Linda Lovelace and Chuck Traynor comes from two sources — the 2005 documentary Inside Deep Throat and Legs McNiel’s and Jennifer Osborne’s book The Other Hollywood. In both the book and the documentary, Lovelace comes across as being a rather pathetic figure who was exploited by both the adult film industry and the anti-pornography activists who used her as a symbol. Both the industry and the activists abandoned Linda once her novelty was gone. Ironically, even though both the documentary and the book are rather critical of her, it is there that she comes across as a far more interesting, sympathetic, and ultimately tragic figure than she does in this biopic.

With all that in mind, Lovelace is not necessarily a failure as a film. The 70s are convincingly recreated and there’s a few scenes that hint at the type of film that this could have been if the filmmakers had been willing to take a few more risks.

The film is also full of excellent performances. Seyfried is sympathetic and believable as Linda and, up until the second half of the film requires him to abandon all shades of ambiguity, Sarsgaard perfectly captures the sleazy charm that someone like Chuck Traynor would need to survive. As Linda’s strict mother, Sharon Stone is surprisingly strong. Just watch the scene where Linda’s mom explains to her that she has to go back to abusive husband because that’s what marriage is all about and you’ll see an example of great acting. Even better is Robert Patrick, who brings a poignant sadness to the role of Linda’s father. The scene where he tells Linda that he saw her on film is heartbreaking.

Lovelace is a film of hits and misses. Sadly, it misses the big picture but a few individual parts and performances are strong enough to justify sacrificing spending 93 minutes to watch it.

Film Review: Les Miserables (dir. by Tom Hooper)

Posted on January 15, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I was recently talking to one of my fellow film bloggers when the subject of this year’s Oscar nominees came up. After I told her that I thought that Beasts of the Southern Wild was the worst of this year’s nominees, she rather vigorously shook her head and said, “No film this year was less deserving of a nomination than Les Mis.”

Now, I have to admit that it’s rare that her and I ever agree on anything. For instance, she thinks that Barack Obama is going to save the world whereas I … well, let’s just say that I don’t. She watches Glee and I would watch Community if it would ever come back on the air. However, we do usually agree about films and, in fact, our friendship was initially the result of our shared loathing for Avatar. So, I was curious why her reaction to Les Miserables was so different from mine.

In her own words, Les Miserables was “bombastic” and over-directed by Tom Hooper. She complained about Russell Crowe’s singing and she felt that Sacha Baron Cohen appeared to be acting in a totally different film from everyone else. The term “style over substance” came up more than a few times and she felt that even the things that did work — like Anne Hathaway’s draining performance as Fantine, Samantha Barks’ poignant work as Eponine, and Aaron Tveit’s charismatic performance as Enjorlas — simply served to highlight how uneven the film was when taken as a whole. Finally — and I think that this is actually the key behind a lot of the online backlash against Les Miserables — she admitted that a part of her reaction was due to the fact that she still resented the fact that Hooper’s previous film, The King’s Speech, defeated The Social Network for Best Picture way back in 2010.

What’s ironic is that I found myself agreeing with a lot of what she was saying. The fact of the matter is that Hooper does over-direct Les Miserables and the frequent jump cuts do tend to detract from the film’s performances. It’s not a coincidence that the film’s best performance is given by one of the few performers (Anna Hathaway, of course) who is actually allowed to sing an entire song in close-up without Hooper cutting away to distract us with something else. And yes, Sacha Baron Cohen does feel out-of-place and yes, Russell Crowe is a bit miscast in the role of Javert.

And yet, despite those not minor complaints, I still loved Les Miserables and I think it’s more than deserving of its nomination for Best Picture of the year.

Les Miserables in an adaptation of the Broadway musical that was itself an adaptation of Victor Hugo’s classic novel. The plot will be familiar to anyone who has ever taken an English class. In 19th century France, Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) serves 19 years in prison for stealing bread. When he’s paroled from prison, he adopts a new identity and starts a new life. Eventually, he becomes a factory owner and a local politician and is known for his kindness and honesty. When the tragic prostitute Fantine (Anne Hathaway) dies, Valjean adopts her daughter, Cosette. However, when the obsessive Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) learns of Valjean’s true identity, Valjean and Cosette are forced to go into hiding. Many years later, the now grown Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) has fallen in love with the revolutionary Marius (Eddie Redmayne, who gives a performance that is just as good as Hathaway’s much more lauded work). As France descends into revolution, Javert again discovers Valjean, much blood is shed on the streets of Paris, and Sacha Baron Cohen keeps popping up and offering some awkward comedic relief.

Yes, Les Miserables is all about style and yes, it is a bit bombastic but is that necessarily a bad thing? I loved Les Mis specifically because it was such an old school spectacle. There have been several very serious, very sober-minded adaptations of Les Miserables and most of them, especially the nearly 5 hour French version from 1934, deserve to be seen. Both the Broadway musical and Hooper’s adaptation play up the story’s inherent melodrama and the resulting show is one that is designed to get more of an emotional response than an intellectual one. Tom Hooper’s Les Miserables is a film that has specifically been made for those of us who aren’t ashamed to shed a few tears at the movies. When I walked out of the theater after watching Les Miserables, I had mascara everywhere and I can’t think of a higher compliment to pay this uneven but ultimately triumphant film.

Trailer: Les Misérables (International)

Posted on November 17, 2012 by Arleigh

With all my attention on horror-theme last October I had forgotten that the latest trailer for this holiday season’ upcoming feature-length film adaptation of the musical Les Misérables has already come out.

The film will be directed by Academy Award-winning director Tom Hooper (fresh off his win for The King’s Speech) he leads a star-studded ensemble cast in putting on the big screen the much-beloved musical that dominated the 80’s and most of the 90’s. I don’t know any kid growing up during that decade who didn’t get dragged to see the musical in the big cities it entrenched itself in. Instead of hating the experience most kids ended up loving the musical. I know that I was one such highschooler who ended up loving it and musicals in general.

This international trailer shows more of the story compared to the teaser which arrived 5 months earlier. We get to see snippets of Crowe singing as Javert and Seyfried as Cosette. Whilethe West End and Broadway productions have come to an end or at the very least not as popular as they used to be) hopefully this film adaptation will introduce this classic to a new generation of kids. Show them that there’s more to music than the pop hits that dominates the radio waves and internet radio sites.

Les Misérables is set for a December 25, 2012 release date.

Image Source: JWoodhams Deviantart

Trailer: Les Misérables (Teaser)

Posted on May 30, 2012 by Arleigh

The moment I saw the news feed that one of my most anticipated films of 2012 finally has an official teaser trailer out I knew that my expectations would only grow with each viewing.

Tom Hooper doesn’t go for small in following up his Academy Award-winning directing work in The King’s Speech by adapting the hugely popular and beloved stage musical Les Misérables which in itself was adapted from the classic Victor Hugo novel of the same name. The cast stars Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe in the roles of Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert. Anne Hathaway comes away with the role of the tragic Fantine with Amanda Seyfried taking on the role of Fantine’s grown-up daughter Cosette. In what could be a star-making turn, Samantha Barks gets the coveted role of Eponine which was the same role she played as part of the musical’s 25th Anniversary Concert.

Details about this film musical has been scarce, but it’s already been reported that every actor in the cast does their own singing and done so live in front of the camera. This stylistic choice may keep some of the songs from reaching epic levels, but should do well in better conveying the emotional impact for some of the more personal character songs in the musical. In fact, the song that Anne Hathaway sings in the trailer, “I Dreamed A Dream”, is one of those character songs that seem to sound much better with it being less is more style.

Les Misérables is set for a December 14, 2012 release date.

Film Review: Red Riding Hood (dir. by Catherine Hardwicke)

Posted on March 13, 2011 by Leonard Wilson

My problems with Red Riding Hood are more of a personal nature than anything else. I’m from a family that clashed old world values of women being blindly subserviant to the Man of the House vs. women being fiercely independent and only having a male in their lives to complement things. These elements were my luggage already brought to the table on seeing the film, but it shouldn’t damper one’s opinion on the film. If this review does this, it’s on me personally and not a reflection of the entire Shattered Lens.

Like Alice in Wonderland before it, Red Riding Hood takes the classic fairy tale and expands on it. While it does so, it doesn’t do it by much. What it has going for it is a nice visual style. Colors are vibrant and director Catherine Hardwicke really has an eye when it comes to forest landscapes (just as she did with Twilight). Mists cover the trees and capes billow in the wind, when it’s not concentrating on the town itself (which does look like a soundstage at times). In the end, however, it suffers from the same quasi teenage issues that Twilight had. I yawned a number of times. Granted, I understand that the movie may be targeted to a younger audience (and for them it may very well work), but even my audience groaned a little and they were target individuals.

Red Riding Hood is the story of Valerie (Amanda Seyfried), who lives in a small village that lives in fear of The Wolf, who has been known to sneak in and attack or kill citizens. To appease the wolf, the townspeople keep animals tied outside. As a child, she forms a bond with a young boy named Peter. Time passes, and we find young Valerie bethrothed to Henry (Max Irons) by way of her mother’s plans (played by Virginia Madsen). Peter (Shiloh Fernandez) still has feelings for Valerie, and this all quickly becomes another Bella / Jacob / Edward triangle. It’s not at the start a story of Valerie choosing her own road, but having to hear from everyone around her that this guy should be the one she marries or that one is the right guy for her. To me, personally, the film in the beginning pushes as much of a pro-“I need a man to survive” stance as Battle:LA does a Pro-Marine one. Is this a terrible thing? Not if that’s where your mindset is, no. Every time I saw them mention anything along the lines of hand and feet worship some guy just because “that’s how it is”, I had to remind myself that it’s just the time period the story takes place in (though I’m sure the audience heard me groan at least once). Again, that’s just me.

In the midst of all this, on being asked to run away with Peter, Valerie is alerted to her sister’s death from the wolf. The townfolk make a point of going after the wolf, and decide to head out the cave where they believe the beast lives. They return with proof of a victory and plan to host a party for the deed. The town priest (Lukas Haas, who somehow seems to less here than he did in Inception) reaches out for help in form of Solomon (Gary Oldman). Solomon, arriving with armed guards warns the townsfolk of the evil of werewolves and that he will hunt it down. The next few nights will be Blood Moon nights, meaning that if the wolf bites anyone during that time, they’ll become werewolves as well. The townsfolk, not buying into this, decide to have a wild party with sexy dancing. This results in a visit from the Wolf, who confronts Valerie and telepathically asks her to come away with it, or the town will be razed. It all kind of escalates from there.

Oldman, for his credit, was fun here and slightly over to the top. Oldman delivers his lines with flair, being far less subdued here than he was in The Book of Eli. For who better to hunt a wolf than Sirius Black himself, right?

And that’s part of the problem I found with Red Riding Hood. With the exception of Seyfried, the supporting cast is actually stronger than the main group of actors the story focuses on. Julie Christie plays Valerie’s grandmother, in a great turn, and as always Billy Burke (Drive Angry, Twilight) is supportive as Valerie’s father. He’s really one of the highlights of the film. As for Henry and Peter’s characters, the most I could think of with them were the Winchester brothers in Supernatural. They’re eye candy for the girls, though I should note that none of the girls in my audience were excited as they were when I saw The Twilight Saga: New Moon. There were lots of screaming for that one.

What does work is that the movie is reminiscient of The Beast Must Die. It is a mystery of who the wolf actually is, and both Valerie and the audience are given clues. That I actually enjoyed, and the third act of the film wasn’t too bad. The action is quick and to the point, but again, it all kind of feels like I could have seen this as a series on the CW. There wasn’t as much of a worry about who would fall at the hands of the wolf or what dangers would face Valerie so much as they actually looked cool when it occurred. Easily a Netflix pick.

The 10 Worst Films of 2010

Posted on December 29, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Sometime during the first week of January, I’ll post my picks for the top 25 films of 2010. But for now, I’m going to go ahead and post the much more fun list, my picks for the 10 Worst Films of 2010.

10) Knight and Day — Tom Cruise gets creepier with each film.

9) Robin Hood — Sorry, but that “I declare him to be an …. OUTLAWWWWWW!” line can only carry a film so far.

8 ) Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps — Money may never sleep but Lisa Marie did. Shia LeBouf as a financial genius? Plus, any film that so completely wastes the talents of Carey Mulligan deserves to be on this list. The Other Guys got across the exact same message and was actually entertaining.

7) Eat Pray Love — Finally, a film that tells us all how to find peace, enlightenment, and happiness. First off, have a lot of money. Secondly, be Julia Roberts.

6) Solitary Man — A superb performance from Michael Douglas can’t disguise the fact that this is yet another entry in the “Men-Just-Can’t-Help-It” genre of film.

5) Hereafter — This is, quite frankly, one of the most boring films I’ve ever seen in my life. And I’ve seen a lot of boring films. This is also one of those films that attempts to convince you that it’s a quality production by making all the actors look as crappy as possible. Seriously, did they just pump collagen into Jay Mohr’s face?

4) Clash of the Titans — Zeus must be turning over in his grave.

3) Chloe — Great director (Atom Egoyan), great cast (Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson, Amanda Seyfried), terrible movie. I’m still trying to understand how this one came about.

2) The American — An homage to the French New Wave that fails because it is neither French nor new and there’s also a notable lack of waves.

1) Love and Other Drugs — What makes this film the worst of 2010? The beginning, the middle, and the end.

Red Riding Hood Trailer

Posted on December 11, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I went to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One earlier today and, before the film started, I saw the trailer for the upcoming Red Riding Hood. The trailer itself gives off a definite Twilight vibe, which isn’t surprising since both films were directed by Catherine Hardwicke and, regardless of what we may think of them, the Twilight films have made a lot of money. So, it makes sense that the trailer would be designed to bring in as many Twilight fans as possible…

Still, I’m looking forward (though admittedly, with a certain amount of caution) to Red Riding Hood. Why? Well, first off, Gary Oldman’s in it and Gary Oldman would have made Twilight a lot better as well. Plus, both of the leads are pretty to look at. (And, it should be noted, if Amanda Seyfried could give a good performance in a terrible film like Chloe than she can probably give a good performance in anything.) And finally — Catherine Hardwicke made her debut with Thirteen back in 2003 and I love that film so much that I can even forgive her for a hundred Twilights.

Anyway, here’s the trailer.