The Lovely Bones

I feel like there’s been a rash of stinkers lately; a lot of movies I thought I’d enjoy but didn’t. Am I expecting too much? Have I become too cynical? Do I get too excited about movies, walking myself into the inevitable disappointment? I think the more disappointed I am in Hollywood, the more excited I get about future releases, and then of course I’m let down again. It’s a downward spiral. I refuse to be cynical, though. Conan O’Brien told me not to be. So, I’m just gonna keep on looking forward to movies and not let those let-downs bother me. So, Lovely Bones, you have no power over me!

This movie sucked - for real. I know respectable movie critics should use smarter words than that, but it’s the only word I can think of. It sucked me in with fabulous previews and Imogen Heap songs. It sucked me in with, “A Film by Peter Jackson”. And then, inevitably, it blew. This was the film equivalent of that old sideshow act, Man Eating Chicken. You think there’s some crazy chicken in there eating people, but it’s really just some man eating fried chicken.

Peter Jackson is a talented epic director; the Lord of the Rings series, The Hobbit, King Kong – all epic movies. The Lovely Bones, to me, is a small story, centered on the lives of a small family in a small town. I’m sure the producers chose Jackson as director with the heaven sequences in mind. It seems like he focused more on CGI than on developing an actual story. The characters were not developed, the pacing was slow, and there wasn’t any excitement. I understand the story is a somber one, but in any drama we need a little tension or pieces of a puzzle coming together.

As an audience, we see melancholy moment, followed by weird heaven stuff, and then back to melancholia. And we have no idea what is even going on up there in heaven. Did Susie Salmon take the red pill and travel to Strawberry Fields? Seriously, heaven looked ridiculous. I felt like I was watching my sister’s Lisa Frank trapper keeper come to life.

Not really my sister.

I guess there is the argument that since it was Susie’s heaven, she would see images like that being a fourteen-year-old girl. But according to Susie’s weird little friend, she’s not in heaven. Apparently it’s the “in-between”. So is it her subconscious making these images appear? Not sure. I think Jackson should have scrapped the fancy schmancy heaven stuff and taken a minimalistic approach. I picture that episode of Family Ties when Alex’s friend dies in the car accident. The two of them talk and reflect on life on an empty stage. This produced the opposite effect that The Lovely Bones did. The audience has no choice but to reflect on the stories being told.

I also had issues with these two side characters that I assume had bigger roles in the book. There’s the dreamy older boy, Ray, and the psychic girl, Ruth. Neither of them is developed nor do they add anything to the story.

"You are beautiful Susie Salmon, by the way did you do my history homework?"

Susie apparently loved Ray, and Ray apparently loves Susie. I didn’t really buy that. He looks more like her principal. After Susie dies, she sees Ray in her In-Between (ha ha). There is one ridiculously cheesy moment when Susie finds him waiting for her by a lake, and his face reflects off the water. It looks more like something out of Twilight than anything I’d expect from Peter Jackson.

I expected Ruth to be an interesting character, but she added absolutely nothing. I thought for sure she’d help Susie’s family solve the mystery, but she doesn’t. She just sees Susie sometimes and is like, “Oh weird. Hey Susie.” The only time Ruth uses her mad ghost whispering skills is at the end, and it’s probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in any movie ever. Imagine if the movie Exorcist mated with an episode of Saved by the Bell. This scene would be that couple’s baby. It's a very ugly baby.

The other characters, while on screen more frequently, aren’t all that interesting either. Mark Wahlberg plays a concerned dad who misses his daughter. That's great but I think if I were looking for my daughter I’d be randomly punching people on the street until they confessed, not just kinda moping around like a sad sack. Rachel Weisz plays the mother, but she’s barely in the movie. That’s disappointing because she is attractive. Susan Sarandon is a fine actress but her part as the grandmother was just irritating and didn’t fit the movie.

There were just too many unlikable elements in The Lovely Bones. I’m extremely disappointed that I didn’t like it. The only positive thing about this movie is Stanley Tucci. What a guy. I swear, I’ve liked every one of his roles – even in The Devil Wears Prada. He's really good in this and is extremely creepy. So, Stanley, you earned The Lovely Bones one sticker. Congratulations.

I've waited forever for a reason to post this:

The Haunting of Molly Hartley

What haunts Molly Hartley? Aside from the haunting sound of her agent never calling again, I really couldn’t tell you.

Horror movie reviews aren’t my usual forte. I rarely watch them anymore. They are too violent and disturbing lately. I can handle blood and guts, but I think today’s horror directors have lost the campiness that made my generation’s horror movies so great. Horror movies should be scary, but they should be fun too. And there isn’t anything fun about torture porn.

But my wife and I have a tradition, every Halloween we watch a scary movie. We try to rent something that is really scary or really cheesy. This year, it was Drag me to Hell, something I hoped would be a little of both. But, of course, I wait until the last minute to rent it, and both Redboxes near me were out. Yes, I’ve heard of Blockbuster. Believe it or not, it’s an hour away. Okay maybe not an hour, but when you have the only baby in the world that doesn’t like car rides sitting in the back seat, it might as well be an hour. Plus he doesn’t care much for scary movies.

Not only was Drag Me to Hell sold out, every scary movie that looked remotely good was out too. You would think it was Halloween or something. I even considered this inevitable waste of one dollar:

"But I don’t want to be an airman!

I want to be alone with my Fallout Boy records!"

So I drove home, hoping we’d find something on Starz or in my personal library of classics. If all else failed, we could suffer through Ghost Adventures Live. That Zak is a walking bicep in big pants. “Whoa did you dudes hear that? It was a ghost!” No, I’m pretty sure that was your bag of douche overflowing into your big pants. Seriously MC Hammer called and said you have big pants.

Anyway, we found a movie via On Demand: The Haunting of Molly Hartley. It sounded familiar. I liked The Exorcism of Emily Rose and loved The Haunting in Connecticut, so this similarly-titled flick was a sure winner.

Let’s first discuss that title: The Haunting of Molly Hartley. So this is a movie about a chick named Molly who is either being haunted or is haunting, depending on how you read that. Turns out, it’s neither.

As you know I’m against spoiling movies, but in this case, I’m really saving you. Molly is a girl on the verge of her 18th birthday. She’s almost cute but looks kind of stoned. She lives alone with her dad and her mom is M.I.A. It doesn’t take long to figure out that her mom is somehow involved in Molly’s troubled past. At school Molly meets a guy who is a little too well-endowed in the eyebrow area. Side note: Two girls from 90210 and Chace Crawford (who doesn’t know how to spell his own name) from Gossip Girl appear in this movie. What does that tell you?

No caption required.

Anyway, this dude is kind of into Molly so she gets all girly and excited. So while all this teen drama goes on, Molly has creepy dreams about her mom. The only scares we get are the kind of jump-out-from-behind-a-corner crap we’d expect from Nickelodeon’s Are You Afraid of the Dark. None of it’s scary, and none of it’s really happening. It’s all in her head. And it happens over and over again. There’s no buildup, there’s no tension… there’s just hello I’m here! Molly’s mom just keeps showing up and being creepy. Not scary-creepy, just annoying-creepy. Mom even joins Facebook and leaves Molly comments like, “How do I use this?” and “What cocktail are you? I am a cosmo. LOL!” That doesn’t happen. Really in Molly’s dreams, her mom keeps trying to stab her. Turns out Molly’s mom actually did this when Molly was younger and was sent to a psychiatric hospital. Molly lives in fear of her return. Then, one random day, she returns (!) and tries to stab her again, but Molly throws her off a balcony.

"You're cursed, Molly! Cursed with split ends!"

Molly’s guidance counselor comes into the picture at some point too, I don’t remember when, probably around the time I got up to read a book. The counselor and Chace-with-two-C’s throw Molly a birthday party and the truth is revealed. Molly actually died during birth, but the counselor came along and offered her parents a deal. She could bring Molly back to life, but when she turned 18 she would become a demon spawn. Why not, right? Her parents make the deal but then her mom changes her mind and tries to kill her off. So now that it’s her birthday, the counselor and boyfriend throw her a party with a bunch of demons. Molly tries to stab herself, but that doesn’t work because now she’s immortal (?) Suddenly the scene just ends and we apparently flash forward to graduation day. Molly is apparently rich and all around popular and awesome. Fade out, the end. We are left to assume that she just accepts her destiny as an evil demon. But when did she decide that? Why did she decide that? Was Chace really a demon? How long has he been a demon? Was he even 18? How did she get all that money? Does she do evil things or does she just look fancy? And she’s immortal? So when does the devil get to reclaim her soul if she can never die? And if she got to live forever why would her mom try to kill her all these years thus sending her directly to hell? And finally, where was this so called haunting?

Basically this movie has no redeeming qualities whatever. It’s not scary, it’s not funny, it’s not exciting, it’s not original, it’s not interesting, it’s not eventful, it’s not thought-provoking, and worst of all, it doesn’t have an ending. They skipped the ending and went straight to the beginning of the sequel. If you ask me, the concept of girl-becoming-demon is kind of interesting. Why not cut half the slow-paced teen drama, and have Molly become a demon somewhere in the middle. Let’s see her powers! Then somebody, maybe her dad, should try to fight her, but of course she defeats him because he caused this whole demon birthday thing. And actually that’s the new title; Demon Birthday. The bible-beater chick should jump in too and try to defeat her. I didn’t mention her before because she’s a freak, sorry. I don’t know if Molly wins or loses in the end, but my point is that the writers really missed the boat here. The movie sets itself up for a pretty cool story, but then fails to deliver.

Avoid this festering blob at all costs. As we learned, it is probably not the movie you thought your heard of before, and more likely some kind of direct-to-video release, made by someone at the WB. No offense to the WB though – I miss you Dawson!

1 demon birthday cake

Tideland

Tideland is a film by Terry Gilliam. I know this because Terry himself opens the movie with a disclaimer. He tells the audience that they will probably not like this movie. Well. Why the hell am I watching it then, Terry? Oh yeah, because you're Terry Gilliam, my third favorite director, and you've never disappointed me. Not even with the Brothers Grimm. Gilliam is also responsible for Twelve Monkeys, Time Bandits, Brazil, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and of course, all of the Monty Python movies.
Gilliam says that I won't like this movie because it's disturbing. It centers on a little girl who suffers many hardships. She lives in a dump. She has doll-heads for friends. She is ignored by her rock-star parents (except when they need her to prepare their heroin). I'd say that's pretty disturbing. But that didn't bother me. Gilliam's disclaimer should have said, "You won't like this movie because it is very boring."
Of course, there will be people saying that this is a masterpiece. Even I found myself making excuses for him. But it's honestly not Gilliam caliber.
I believe that the point of this film is to show how a little girl escapes her every day problems in a realistic modern way. While there are subtle references to Alice in Wonderland, I wanted this film to be Alice in Wonderland. I wanted the creepy little chick to go Where the Wild Things Are or to the Land of Oz. Gilliam is so great at creating worlds for kids to get lost in and crazy characters to get lost with. Tideland, however, really lacks that kind of imagination. She doesn't go anywhere but the field behind her house. She meets two pointless people (a slow aqua-nut and a bee-fearing ghost-lady) that don't teach her anything or provide any real escape. She plays with one of them, and imagines that the field is an ocean and that a nearby train is a big shark, but otherwise the characters just sort of exist.
I understand that the film is based on a book and that Gilliam chose to stay true to the story. There's just so much potential here; so much room to add that personal touch. The scenery was creepy and the ghost-lady reminded me of a Time Bandits character, but honestly this could have been directed by someone else and I'd never know the difference.
The movie is very gruesome, but like I said, it didn't bother me all that much. If you have a weak stomach I don't suggest watching the movie. One scene involves the taxidermy of a human. My only concern has to do with the production of this movie and its affect on a 10-year-old girl. How do you prevent a child from emotional distress when she is required to act in a scene where drugs and sex are involved? I only hope that the producers considered the girl's well-being. We all see what Full House did to the Olsen twins.
1 severed doll head.

Clerks II

First, let me just say that I am actually a fan of Kevin Smith. I've seen all his movies. I own all his movies (Jersey Girl being the only exception). I know all about the ViewAskewniverse. So that's why it breaks my heart to give Clerks II, ahem, II thumbs down.
The film does approach some issues like ambitions and/or lack thereof, much like Clerks did. But Smith has pretty much replaced the spiteful sarcastic clerks we love, with perverted mockeries of them. It's like watching a film where all the characters are Jay, except for Jay – he's found Jesus.
The film begins during the original Clerks era. Dante and Randall leave the Quick-Stop to work at Mooby's restaurant, a Dogma reference (Love it!). Fast-forward to present day and Dante and Randall are still working at Mooby's. Where sharp-tongued criticism and annoying customers should be, only slightly amusing banter and disgusting jokes remain. One of the most disgusting things I have witnessed in a film appears in this very film. I'll devote an entire paragraph to that later.
The entire Clerks culture has changed in Clerks II. I think that Smith has lost touch with his original point: to make a funny movie based on truth. Rather than sit down and try to write intelligent criticism of small-town America like before, he has traded in his pen for a mad-libs book. (I suppose you still need a pen for mad-libs, but you get my point.) Take a plot we've seen hundreds of times, and insert a few names and dirty words.
The story of Clerks II is nice, but nothing new. Dante is getting married to Emma (played by a talent-less Mrs. Kevin Smith). But does he really love someone else? You got drama! The interesting thing is Randall's concern for his best friend. Even though Randall is fouler here than in the original, he also shows a little more heart. That was nice. I enjoyed that.
But now let me tell you what I did not enjoy.
Although there were some humorous moments, like the Star Wars vs. Lord of the Rings discussion, all the other bits were cheap and so over the top that they weren't funny. Was I really supposed to laugh each time a character said, "Ass to mouth?" There were dirty jokes in the original Clerks, sure, but they were quick and not as forced as they so obviously were here.
Speaking of dirty jokes taken way too far, let's discuss the donkey-sex. Did I miss the humor here? A man has sex with a donkey in a scene that lasts about 20 minutes. I recall something like this happening in the movie Bachelor Party, only it was implied, and the humor was how absurd the bachelor party could get. Obviously, the donkey-sex is simulated in Clerks II, but we are forced to see the facial expressions of the leather-clad donkey-rapist and hear pretty much everything. Not much is left to the imagination, and that's something I never wanted to imagine in the first place. The scene actually scared me. Is rape funny? Is animal abuse funny? It isn't funny; it's disgusting and wrong. Smith is better than this; he's smarter. He shouldn't be resorting to such cheap gross-out humor.
Smith has also left out something I'm surprised more of his fans aren't upset about. Even though this is a direct sequel, rarely is there a connection to his other films. The thing I enjoy most about Kevin Smith is his use of the View Askewniverse. The Askewniverse, named after his production company, is the universe that his stories live in. There are reoccurring characters, themes, and jokes, all centered in New Jersey. Each film references past, and even future films. It's a work of genius as far as I'm concerned. But since Clerks II barely makes a connection to the other films, I have a hard time considering this part of the View Askewniverse. Jason Lee, Ethan Suplee, and Ben Affleck all appear in this movie, but they don't play the characters they played before. I ask, why not? That would have made me laugh, at least three times.
There isn't even one comic book reference! Blasphemy!
Clerks II is pretty disappointing. If you are a fan of Clerks, don't expect to find the same cynicism and intelligence here; there isn't any. If you are a fan of donkey-rape, then maybe this movie is for you. Let's hope the Clerks Animated Movie is better.



1 sad little Mooby