Home Alone (1989)

It’s not high art but it’s not low-brow cinema either. Home Alone is one of those rare family comedies that hits all its marks and doesn’t leave you with an aftertaste of cheese.

John Hughes, one of the most successful film scribes in the 1980s turns away from coming-of-age tales fraught with teen angst and sets his sights on family dynamics as told through the eyes of a youngest child in a large family. Through the young Macaulay Culkin, Hughes and director Chris Columbus provide a raucous tale of a little boy left by himself by accident while the rest of his family head to France for Christmas.

Overlooked by his frantic family, young Kevin McCallister has to cope with being the “man of the house” and fending for himself. It’s bad enough that he’s scared of the basement and his neighbor but a pair of bumbling cat burglars has set their sights on his home as well. Out of options, Kevin must defend his home against the invaders.

Very little of what happens in Home Alone is believable, let alone plausible. I mean, how many eight-year-olds do you know that would take on two dangerous men over calling the cops? Also, how many people would fall for the traps that Harry and Marv (Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern) do? Lastly, how many parents would get all the way to the airport and get on the plane before realizing one of their kids is missing?

A cynic would have very harsh things to say about the foolhardiness of Kevin, the idiocy of Harry and Marv, the parenting skills of the McCallisters and the lack of a bond between Kevin and his numerous siblings. The rest of us take the film for what it is- a ridiculously escalated version of something that happens more frequently than most parents would like to admit. I myself was accidentally left at home alone once as a child (though merely for a matter of a few hours) and I’m sure that I am not the only one who can say this.

Home Alone is the kind of film where you can turn your brain off for the most part and just have fun. Many viewers will find themselves getting in touch with their inner child once more as Kevin wanders around in a world full of adults. Using a child as young as Macaulay Culkin was at the time is critical to the film’s success. No one would believe a child younger than eight capable of the things Kevin gets into. Using a teenager would also not have worked because, by that age, a child should know better and just call the cops.

Using a young child works because it enables the filmmakers to hit two powerful demographics. Younger children will be able to identify with Kevin’s sense of wonder at the world of adults. Moms and dads will be able to relate to the panic and worry that fill Kevin’s parents as they try to get home to their son. Everyone meets in the middle for some quirky, slapstick fun. If you really want to overanalyze things, then the slapstick crosses the line of believability numerous times and shouldn’t be so funny. But if you just sit back and enjoy the ride, you’ll be in stitches.

Home Alone does not try to be believable in every way. The filmmakers are keenly aware of how absurd and unlikely their film is and they milk it for all it is worth. The fun is expertly supplemented throughout the film with brief lessons for Kevin and his parents on what it means to be a family. This blend of comedy and moral lesson is a tough feat to pull off without compromising the humor at the wrong moment. Instead, this film is memorable for both its hilarity and its tale about a family in need of some serious mending.

A modern Christmas classic, Home Alone stands out among the myriad of cheesy family holiday tales, many of which came after its release and failed to replicate the harmony of laughs and lessons. If you don’t watch this film every year then you’re missing out.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Juno* (2007)

WARNING: Mild spoilers ahead

The indie darling of 2007, Juno captures the horrifying awkwardness that comes with a teenage pregnancy. Critics all over the map gushed with praise for this film and it is understandable why many enjoyed it. There is a lot of good stuff to be found here. Balancing the drama of teen pregnancy with honest humor, Juno is a one-of-a-kind film.

Juno is a sixteen-year-old high school student in Minnesota who discovers that she’s pregnant after having sex with her best friend, Paulie Bleeker. They didn’t do it out of passion or love for each other though. A combination of boredom and curiosity led them to creating a child that is the center of this story. Juno first considers having an abortion but gets cold feet at the last second. Settling on giving up the baby for adoption, Juno and her friend Leah discover a potential couple in the Pennysaver ads.

Now, I don’t know much about adoption procedures but I have a hard to believing that finding adoptive parents through classified ads is a common, or even advisable, practice. But this is just one of the many quirky attributes and goings-on within Juno. The couple she finds seems nice enough and they’re even around an awful lot to chat with the mother of their soon-to-be child. Mark and Vanessa look like a really well put together couple on the surface but, as Juno grows to know the couple more over the course of her pregnancy, issues rise to the surface.

Juno’s family is another story. Her father and step-mother are just as quirky as she is but they react to her pregnancy in an almost too-good-to-be-true manner. They’re there to support her, which is good but the fact that they weren’t overly fazed by Juno’s announcement struck me as odd. But oddness abounds in this film. Some will find it endearing while others may think it unrealistic and not know what to make of it all. Paulie is the kind of socially awkward but well-meaning nerdy guy that would most likely have a hard time getting a date. Thankfully, he’s got a cute, indie rock-listening friend who was equally bored and curious one night.

While the writing may get a little overly clever and borderline Gilmore Girls-ish at times, Juno never completely overdoes it. The script manages to retain just the right amount of awkwardness to keep all the wit and snark in check. Relationships are always in flux, sometimes tested and other times just strained as Juno’s delivery date draws closer. It almost seems as if Juno develops a crush on her baby’s adoptive father, a part of the film that is extremely awkward to watch, but nothing inappropriate happens, which comes as a major relief.

In the end, Juno has a lot of heart. This is, along with its witty script, is what made this independent film such a success with critics and audiences. While Juno’s experience certainly is not the norm for teenage pregnancies, it presents the issue with an honesty and maturity that makes it more accessible to a wider audience. It’s not just a teen-pregnancy film or a coming-of-age film. Juno is a unique hybrid of comedy, family drama and several other genres that help to make a memorable picture.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Iron Man (2008)

After the success of the X-Men and Spider-Man franchises, Marvel Comics brings one of its most beloved comic book heroes to the big screen. It melds the original spirit of the comic with current events and a few updates. Mixing high-flying action, wit and an anti-war message is a tall undertaking but Iron Man manages to pull it off in just the right bright and loud package that comic book fanboys and summer movie audiences require.

Billionaire playboy Tony Stark is on top of the world. He is a brilliant inventor and head of the most profitable weapons manufacturer on the planet. He is a wry, sarcastic son of a gun and loves his liquor. However, after he is attacked and held prisoner by a terrorist cell after a weapons demonstration in the Middle East, Stark suffers a crisis of conscience. After building a robotic suit to facilitate his escape, he destroys his captors and finds his way home.

Stark holds a press conference and proclaims that his company will no longer manufacture weapons, having been on the receiving end of their awesome wrath. The decision is balked at and blocked by the company’s board of directors, as there is very good money to be made from war. Stark then focuses his efforts on creating another version of the suit, intending to use it to do good in the world. The arrival of a mysterious new hero doesn’t go unnoticed though. Questions swirl around Stark as his personal relationships and business associates create equally unique turmoil in his life.

Robert Downey Jr. brings Tony Stark to life and makes him believable, not only as the womanizing playboy but the redemptive soul looking to help others as well. I think the casting of Downey was a brilliant move because he is one of only a handful of actors who could pull off the redemptive arc of Stark’s story. The Tony Stark we meet in the beginning of the film is very similar to Downey’s behavior during the late 90s. He battled addiction and came out on the other side a changed man. Having lived through such a dramatic transformation surely helped him get inside the mind of Tony Stark. Any time an actor can bring personal experience to their character, the performance is strengthened in ways other actors can only dream of.

While Robert Downey Jr. truly brings the film to life, the supporting cast of Iron Man helps keep everything in check. Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts creates a believable personal assistant who has all but had enough of her boss’s antics. She is frustrated but she loves the man, probably the only reason she still stands by his side. Jeff Bridges portrays Obadiah Stane, the quintessential heartless businessman. He is more concerned about making money and keeping the stock holders happy. During the second half of the film, it is revealed just how far he would go to protect his two main interests.

Other supporting characters include a straight-laced military man, mysterious representatives of a secret organization called S.H.I.E.L.D., and various other members of the populo minutiae. The key to the film’s success is that none of these supporting characters share in Stark’s wit and sarcasm. They react to it and often times work against it, which is key. It helps isolate Stark as the central character but also with himself. Everyone was tired of his antics before his turnaround and, after it, most have a hard time believing it is genuine. Stark really does stand alone against the odds.

In many ways, Iron Man is Marvel Comics answer to Batman. Both involve wealthy tycoons masquerading as superheroes, using their personal fortunes and resources to do so. Both are very much mortal and the only thing that makes them "super" is their devotion to their cause. Each contains a world of colorful characters, both good and bad. The big difference is that, while Batman’s Bruce Wayne is a fairly straight-shooting man seeking a mix of redemption and revenge for something he blames himself for (the death of his parents), Tony Stark doesn’t wear his nobility on his sleeve. Stark has a warmer and more approachable personality and has no inner demons haunting him. Iron Man is something of the average Joe’s Batman; a guy who would save your life, make fun of your hairstyle and then toss back a few beers with you.

This makes Iron Man all the more likable but there were aspects of the film that just didn’t do it for me. It’s very clear that the filmmakers intended this to be the start of a movie franchise and not just a one-shot superhero flick. This forces Iron Man to spend an awful lot of time introducing us to the world of Tony Stark and the characters that inhabit it. Some of these people will become more important down the line but they have to be introduced early in order for grander plans to pay off. This is the unfortunate truth about many origin story films. Time must be taken to bring you up to speed slowly and then pay off all that build up in the second half.

For some, the payoff Iron Man delivers will be sufficient. For me, it was enough to be enjoyable but I was hoping for more. Critics and fans alike enjoyed the film and it’s easy to see why. The action scenes are fun and high-energy, the computer effects look really good for the most part and the hero doesn’t go around speaking in robotic platitudes about doing the right thing. Maybe it’s because I was never into comic books and there wasn’t an Iron Man Saturday morning cartoon to watch when I was a kid, but the film failed to grab and engage me like other superhero flicks have. As good as it is, I don’t feel compelled to watch it again.

Exhilarating but not breathtaking, Iron Man left me feeling like there was more beneath the surface than the filmmakers could bring out the first time around. It’s not necessarily a bad thing but it makes for an awkward introduction. I think that the next installment of the franchise is going to be better for having gotten all the origin stuff out of the way. That’s seems to be how these things work nowadays.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Nineteen years after he rode off into the sunset, Indiana Jones returns to the big screen once more, for better or for worse. Older, slower, greyer and less agile, Jones is still keeping with his professor-by-day-adventurer-on-the-weekends antics. It’s not as easy as it used to be, but he’s still got plenty of sass, spirit and grit to dish out to those who stand in his way.

As a longtime fan of the series, I was always going to enjoy this film. It’s Indiana Jones we’re talking about here. The real question is how much I was going to enjoy it. The answer is “just enough.” At the very least, an Indiana Jones film needs to be bright, loud, exciting and humorous. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull accomplishes this well enough but it meets only the bare minimum of those requirements. When the best thing you can say about an Indiana Jones film is that it’s an Indiana Jones film, something’s gone wrong.

Kingdom suffers some of the same problems that plagued Temple of Doom. First, the artifact driving the events of the film isn’t one many people are familiar with. Crystal skulls, though now mostly dismissed, were once objects of great mystery. The film ups the ante and gives them supernatural capabilities, which is why the bad guys are out for them.

The villains in this film are, much like Temple of Doom, somewhat underwhelming. While the Soviet Union was certainly scary back in the day, it’s hard to be intimidated by them as villains because we know how the Cold War turned out. The Cold War itself was a big anticlimax in the end, so the Soviet threat in this film was much of the same. Maybe it's because the Nazis actually did something with their military might. Granted, it’s also an Indiana Jones movie, so you know the bad guys won’t win. The other problem with the villains is that there really isn’t much character development behind them. They’re there, they’re bad, and they’re there often enough to reinforce that they’re bad.

Also similar to Temple of Doom, there is less globe-trotting and more action sequences that hog up too much of the spotlight and are over the top. Part of the fun of Indy flicks is seeing lots of exotic locations. Here, we’re treated to two American locations and the Amazon. It’s not quite enough diversity for my liking. The long chase and fight sequence in the Amazon rain forest overstays its welcome and becomes increasingly absurd the longer it plays out. The opening scene has its share of flaws as well, which is a shame because the opening scene always helps set the tone for the rest of the film. After Indiana Jones hides himself inside a lead-lined fridge to protect himself from a nuclear blast, my expectations were sufficiently lowered for the remaining 100 or so minutes.

The big action sequences bring out one of the problems inherent to Kingdom itself. Being the modern age, stunts are now bigger and flashier, often using lots of CGI to pull off the most dangerous parts. While an attempt is made to have the stars perform many of their own stunts, there is a noticeable amount of CGI present. These kinds of effects weren’t around for the first three installments, so the abundance of effects shots in this film is jarring at times. Sometimes it felt like they were trying to do too much while combining real actors and digital effects, making the CGI work very obvious and not up to par.

The writing is probably the weakest in the entire series. There’s plenty of wit and wisdom being thrown around but there are also times when it seems like the actors weren’t really sure what to do with their lines. Lucas helped with the screenplay and after the uninspired dialogue of the Star Wars prequels, it’s no wonder his mediocre writing skills show through.

Another thing that irritated me a little was all the references to Indy’s age. Harrison Ford himself requested there be more references to Indy’s age and fading abilities throughout the film but it became something of a running gag that didn’t sit well with me. Perhaps it’s because, subconsciously, we find something very wrong about seeing out heroes get older. The first three Indiana Jones films were made over a nine-year period when Harrison Ford was young and vibrant. Ford hasn’t lost his any of his charm and grit but seeing wrinkles and grey hair on our beloved hero is sobering. Heroes are supposed to be timeless, making James Bond’s continual reinvention every so often seem all the smarter. Such a recasting would have been inconceivable, so credit must be given for making the most out of what the filmmakers had available to them.

In the end, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is one part reunion (seeing the return of Marion Ravenwood) and one part continuation of the action-adventure saga. Thankfully, it does not appear as if George Lucas and Steven Spielberg intended to use the film as a launching pad for spinoffs focusing on young star Shia LaBeouf. While the door doesn’t entirely shut on the possibility of yet another sequel, the film ends on a note that could signify the end of the Indy era.

I think that most fans of Indiana Jones never really wanted there to be a fourth movie. Instead, I think that many of us were simply in love with the idea that there could be a fourth movie. Upon receiving Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I think there are a number of us who wish we could give it back, myself included. It’s the weakest in the series and may undermine some of the magic of the original three but it is another dose of Indiana Jones, which can’t possibly be a bad thing.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Babes in Toyland (1986)

A made-for-TV movie featuring some of the most popular young stars of the day, Babes in Toyland is a modern take on the Victor Herbert operetta. Featuring very few of the original songs, this movie is a very loose adaptation of the original stage production, tweaked in various ways to make it work for the small screen. Unfortunately, the end result is an uninspired mess that misses the mark on many levels.

TV movies are held to a slightly different set of standards but they are still considered movies to me. Movies made for the small screen always have low budgets and the visual effects and props usually suffer. I try to take this sort of thing into account when I watch a made-for-TV movie. Still, in terms of what was possible back in 1986, Babes in Toyland is weak.

Drew Barrymore stars as Lisa Piper, a girl who has very little time for toys because she has to help pitch in for her family. One night, she is riding home with her sister and the boy her sister likes when a blizzard strikes and their car goes off the road. Lisa is transported into the magical world of Toyland, where toys are life size and characters from Mother Goose’s fairy tales populate the village.

The problem is that things are oversimplified in Toyland. I’m not sure if that’s the point or not though, as I have not seen the stage production or any of the prior film adaptations of it. But to me, it seems silly and campy for the 11-year-old lead to come up with all the best ideas, leaving the adults to smile and say “Ooooh!” like a bunch of simpletons. I can see how it might appeal to kids, which is certainly what they were going for, but it still rubs me the wrong way.

The effects are bad, even by TV movie standards, and the costumes are all a little too much. The cast either overacts or under-acts, leaving the finished product feeling like a bipolar mishmash of camp and boredom. The characters in Toyland are exaggerated versions of their counterparts in the real world as well.

What I took away from Babes in Toyland most of all was how similar it is to The Wizard of Oz. As it would turn out, the operetta was written in response to the success of a stage production of The Wizard of Oz. It replicated the same basic premise but changed things enough to avoid any accusations of plagiarism. With this in mind, it’s hard to imagine any version of Babes in Toyland rating too exceptionally high.

While the original story is a bit of a rip-off itself, the 1986 version of Babes in Toyland feels like an uninspired modernization of something that was probably much better. Still, it’s a TV movie. Had this been a major release, I would have torn it to pieces with my rating scale. Since it was a small screen affair, I’ll be nice.

RATING: 2 out of 5

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

After the dark-toned journey of Temple of Doom, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg bring the beloved Indiana Jones back into the light for one last hurrah. Featuring plenty of girls, guns and globetrotting, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade pulls out all the stops and recreates most of the magic that captivated audiences in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Trilogies are oftentimes fickle things. The original is almost always the best, the second installment usually disappoints to a degree (though there are exceptions), and the third chapter can go either way. This film closes out the Indiana Jones trilogy in the best way possible- returning to its roots.

Last Crusade recaptures the light-hearted heroic swagger of old adventure serials that made Raiders of the Lost Ark so fun. Indy’s got his sass back and Harrison Ford oozes charm from start to finish. The Nazis are back as the chief antagonists, seeking an artifact with great power. Said artifact is the fabled Holy Grail; something that Western audiences can easily wrap their heads around. To cap it all off, Indy travels to several gorgeous foreign locales, including Venice, Berlin and Petra (serving as the exterior of the fictional resting place of the Grail).

There are enough differences to prevent this film from feeling too formulaic though. The opening segment once again shows Indy chasing after an artifact but it occurs in Indy’s youth. This opening segment serves a dual function- it shows how Indy first got into high-stakes artifact chasing adventures and it also sets up his relationship with his father, who plays an important part in the film. The addition of Henry Jones is a welcome breath of fresh air as well. Instead of flirting with a woman or bossing around a kid, Indy has met his equal in his father. Sean Connery and Harrison Ford have brilliant chemistry on the screen.

While I normally get annoyed when father-son conflict resolution is injected into an otherwise good plot, I didn’t mind it one bit during this film. Indy’s issues with his father are legitimate but handled with enough light-heartedness that it never becomes the kind of thing you roll your eyes at. Their bonding never seems forced, which makes it more effective, I think.

One of the problems with Temple of Doom was that its action sequences sometimes went a bit too far over the top. Perhaps this was to make up for the dark tone. Fortunately nothing in Last Crusade approaches the level of silliness as the mine cart chase or the airplane/raft escape. The action pieces are spectacular but don’t steal the show. The focus remains the characters that we love to root for.

Some of the special effects in this film show their age quite a bit but they were pretty good when the film first came out. Sometimes this is a hard issue to see around, particularly with older movies where the bluescreen work is painfully obvious. Having grown up with movies from the 80s and 90s though, it is pretty easy for me to gauge the quality of the effects based on my knowledge of other films from the same era. So Last Crusade does pretty well in that department, despite looking silly 20 years later.

Reviews for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were somewhat mixed when it was released but it has been embraced by fans of the original. Not everyone prefers this third installment to Temple of Doom but most of us Indy fans do. I’m a sucker for this film. In some ways it is more fun than Raiders but, when you get right down to it, the original set the tone for the series. This film saw the Indy series seemingly finish on a high note that lasted for 19 years. Last Crusade redeems the series from Temple’s bleakness by borrowing just enough of what Raiders did right with a helping of originality mixed in.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Bambi (1942)

Hearkening back to the lush backgrounds and detailed animations of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Pinocchio, Walt Disney and his crew of animators take audiences into the beauty of the great outdoors for their fifth full-length feature. With a trio of lovable characters, playful music and the innocence of nature, Bambi caps off Disney’s early years with one last triumph.

It’s important to note that after the release of Bambi, Walt Disney lost a fair portion of his animators to work for the US government during World War II creating pro-Ally films. During the war years and the rest of the 1940s Disney animated films were noticeably different in substance and style. In some ways, this makes Bambi something of a last hurrah from the Disney dream team, though they weren’t aware of their impending break up at the time.

This film is remarkable for its attention to detail in the movements of its animal characters. Disney pulled out all the stops to get his animators in front of live deer in order to help the anthropomorphic lead retain realistic movement. Great attention was paid to the flora of Bambi’s world as well. Photographs from the forests of the northeast US helped ensure that the textures and color pallets of the great outdoors were replicated as much as possible. The education instilled during research and development would help Walt Disney animated films for years to come and helped secure them as leaders of the animated film medium even through their hardest times.

Another great success of Bambi is how trim the story is. Even though it is longer than Dumbo, it doesn’t get sidetracked into musical numbers that look good but slow the story down. The pacing is set just right as Bambi learns the ways of the forest from his mother and grows into adolescence and adulthood. He meets fun new friends in Thumper and Flower and even finds himself captivated with a playful doe.

The innocence of Bambi and the forest he lives in does not last for long though. Man enters the picture, the ultimate antagonist to nature. While Man’s role as the enemy of the forest is a bit exaggerated it’s not anywhere near overdone to the point of pulling you out of the story. I myself am pro-hunting but Bambi is hardly an anti-hunting film. It is a tale of lost innocence told through the eyes of an animal. Nature itself is not a sufficient antagonist so Man has to step in to shake things up a bit.

Bambi is a terrific film for all ages. Children can laugh and bounce along with Bambi and his friends while older viewers can marvel at the rich animation and attention to detail. It’s beautiful both in animation and in the story it tells. Important life lessons are imparted upon its characters that are easy for children to understand. It’s not preachy, oversimplified or kiddish.

Bambi is a step up from Dumbo but it doesn’t quite reach the heights achieved by Snow White or Pinocchio. All the same, it is a wonderful film that is worth seeing again and again.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Poltergeist III (1988)

Switching from suburbia to the big city is just one of the many changes present in Poltergeist III, the final chapter in what quickly became a sputtering horror series. While there is a trend that suggests the final installment of a series is often times the worst, I found this film to be an exception to the rule.

While this film fails to capture the magic and chills of the original Poltergeist, the filmmakers did enough right to make me enjoy this film more than Poltergeist II: The Other Side. There are still plenty of problems holding the film back, most important of which is the fact that this is once again a direct sequel that retcons the ending of the second installment.

At the end of Poltergeist II, the evil Reverend Kane was defeated by the Freeling family and was sent on to the other side. Poltergeist III ignores that little fact and has the religious kook of a spook coming back for more. Instead of tormenting the entire family again, which would have been annoyingly redundant, little Carol Anne has been sent to live with her aunt and uncle in a Chicago high-rise. No explanation is given for why the Freelings decided to ditch their daughter but it probably had something to do with the fact that none of the other actors wanted anything to do with another Poltergeist film. A weak cover is made that Carol Ann is going to a school for special children in Chicago (because, clearly, no such schools exist closer to her parents) and her aunt and uncle seem oblivious to any of the horrors their relatives have faced over the last few years.

The spirit of Kane manages to follow Carol Ann and begins appearing to her everywhere. Her school psychologist doesn’t think Kane is real and believes she is making it all up because it gets her the attention she craves. Meanwhile, Tangina somehow realizes Carol Anne is in trouble and begins trekking across the country to help her. It all boils down to a series of attacks and a final battle against Kane’s spirit.

While the story itself has plenty of pitfalls, I think most of that comes from trying to force the story to fit into the Poltergeist mold. Poltergeist II had the same problem- the story was interesting enough to have worked as an indirect sequel. While moviegoers aren’t always so hot on indirect sequels, sometimes they work out well. The concept of an evil spirit haunting a high-rise in the middle of a big city is pretty neat, though hardly original enough to make a good movie. It’s the small things that count.

One of the little touches that I really enjoyed was the tricky mirror work through the latter half of the film. When Kane finally takes full control of the building, he can manipulate people’s reflections, doing his dirty work for him. Some very unique camera techniques are used to make it appear that someone is in the mirrors in the hallway but not in the hallway itself. Also, double static shots and a lot of editing are used to make it appears as if the people in the hall are heading one way and their reflections the other. This bit of technical trickery is one of the big reasons that I prefer III to II. While maybe not innovative, it is certainly a step in a different direction from the standard lot of predictable scares that flooded II.

But technical trickery aside, the film really doesn’t deliver like it should. Very few chills and thrills are to be found and the script desperately needs rewriting in places. Carol Anne isn’t a compelling enough character to carry the film and the supporting players aren’t up to the task either. The battle between psychology and the supernatural was awkward at best and felt forced and borderline silly at times.

Poltergeist III has more raw potential than II did but most of that potential was held back (once again) by not allowing this film to develop as its own supernatural thriller instead of as another Poltergeist sequel. Had it been given the chance to develop outside of its forced foundation, this film could have had a completely different title, completely different characters and a much more satisfying aftertaste.

RATING: 2 out of 5

Cloverfield (2008)

Using a cast of virtual unknowns and a sneak attack marketing strategy, creative mastermind J.J. Abrams and his team of industry friends put together a non-stop thrill ride of a film, the production of which is every bit as impressive as the final result. Abrams and company successfully bring horror and disaster films into the 21st Century with a YouTube generation treatment that is far more than just Godzilla meets The Blair Witch Project.

The whole point of the film is to create the sensation that you are watching a horrific disaster caught on videotape. This is accomplished through the use of hand held digital cameras, quick cuts replicating when the camera gets turned off, and overlapping footage, indicating that whoever is doing the filming is doing so over top of something that was previously recorded. The advent of high-quality digital film making made this movie possible, allowing for numerous special effects to be inserted without compromising the grainy, low-tech look of the film. It certainly won’t fool people into believing what happens in Cloverfield is real (unlike Blair Witch), but that wasn’t one of the film’s goals anyway.

Cloverfield begins with Rob (Michael Stahl-David) filming Beth (Odette Yustman) as she wakes up in bed with him. They had previously been nothing more than close friends but have seemed to have crossed that line. The film then cuts to approximately one month later, where Rob’s brother, Jason (Mike Vogel), and his girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) are planning his surprise going-away party. Rob has taken a position in Japan and is going to be leaving his friends and New York City the next morning.

The camera is given to a friend named Hud (T. J. Miller), who is tasked with taping various attendees well-wishers for Rob in his in job. Through the course of the party we learn that Hud is accidentally taping over footage that Rob holds very dear to him, as he and Beth had a falling out since sleeping together but Rob still has feelings for her. Before too long though, things go haywire. An earthquake seems to hit the city but not is all as it seems. Party goers flock to the balconies and rooftops and they witness explosions blocks away. People fill the streets with a mix of curiosity and wonder which quickly turns into fear and panic as the mysterious source of danger heads their way.

For the remainder of the film, we follow Rob and his friends as they try to escape Manhattan on foot with their lives. Hot on their tail is some bizarre monster that is tearing the city apart. The protagonists encounter the monster both indirectly and directly at times while also running into the US Army, which is sent into the city to combat the creature. The camerawork and the pacing all help create a very tense hour or so of terror-fueled trekking unlike anything seen before on the big screen.

A great deal is done right in this film. The use of young actors with few credits to their names was essential for Cloverfield to succeed. Had any recognizable TV or film star been cast in this movie audiences would have perceived it as more about that person’s involvement than anything else. Instead, the filmmakers focus solely on the story they want to tell and don’t hire anyone that’s going to be a distraction to their film. While not all of the young talent in this film will go on to superstardom (few have been attached to anything that stands out yet), they all do a fantastic job of capturing realistic terror and fear of living through this kind of event.

Another smart move was to show as little of the monster as possible. Instead of showing us in-your-face style destruction at the hands of the monsters like in Godzilla flicks, the filmmakers give us the before and after. The monster is almost never directly on top of our protagonists. Instead, it oftentimes comes just close enough to dish out the right amount of chills and creep the audience out. This less-is-more strategy is always the way to go. It worked for classics like Jaws and Alien and it works here too.

The only thing I wasn’t so crazy about was Rob’s half-foolish decision to head back into the heart of Manhattan to rescue Beth. This was an obvious necessity for the filmmakers, as it prolongs the film and exposes Rob and his friends to even more carnage but I thought it was a more than a little silly. Beth isn’t even his girlfriend but he’s willing to risk his life for her? Maybe I’m just that cynical but I have a hard time believing that I would go romping through danger-filled street for someone that I’m merely sweet on. At the same time, it is probably equally absurd for Rob’s friends to tag along with him. But without his friends, there would be no one documenting it all.

Despite these few lingering questions that came to mind as the credits rolled, Cloverfield has a lot going for it. It is a great merger between style and substance and its entertaining as well. It’s also a bold and unconventional way to tell a story on the big screen. I can’t see this kind of film making becoming too prevalent because few stories outside of monster and disaster flicks would really accommodate it. Even if used under those circumstances, comparisons to this film would be inevitable. This positions Cloverfield to be remembered as either a unique experiment in cinema story-telling or a ground-breaking original that may be replicated but not duplicated. Either way, Cloverfield wins in a big way.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

WARNING: Major Spoilers Ahead!

Based on the successful novel by Philippa Gregory, The Other Boleyn Girl is a tale of lust, treachery, power and obsession surrounding two sisters and the King of England. Though some define the story as a romanticized account of the love triangle between Anne Boleyn, her sister Mary and King Henry VIII, there is hardly anything romantic (in the modern sense) about it at all.

When King Henry VIII’s wife fails to deliver him a male heir to the throne, England’s leader grows restless and begins looking elsewhere to father a future king. Thomas Boleyn, a nobleman and brother-in-law to the Duke of Norfolk hatches a plan to move himself up in the world by positioning his daughter, Anne (Natalie Portman), to catch the King’s eye while he visits the Boleyn estate. Anne has reservations about being a mistress but gives in to the pressure from her father and uncle.

The plan goes awry when the King (Eric Bana) is injured while hunting and gets nursed back to health by Anne’s older sister, Mary (Scarlett Johansson), who is already married. The King invites Mary to his castle and sends her husband away to separate them. Reluctant at first, Mary falls in love with King Henry and begins to cherish the potentially powerful position she finds herself in. She becomes pregnant, which is somewhat scandalous, as King Henry is still bound to his wife by Catholic marriage.

When Mary experiences complications and nearly miscarries, Anne is sent to care for her sister, who is now bed-ridden until the baby can be born. Holding a grudge against Mary for several things in their past, Anne begins to seduce Henry, taunting him with her body but resisting his lustful advances. She drives Henry mad with her demands but he gives in to Anne and banishes Mary from the castle (even after she bears him a healthy son) and breaks England from the Catholic Church so he can divorce his wife and wed Anne.

History tells us the rest of the story- Anne can’t produce a male heir so Henry has her tried and executed, moving on to his latest woman of choice. Certainly not a happy ending but it’s fitting because very little of this film is happy to begin with.

The Other Boleyn Girl will likely be hit or miss with audiences. If you like speculative fiction about historical figures, then this might be up your alley. If you’re not into British history or convoluted love triangles, then I would advise you to pass. This movie is also very bleak and very much a downer, so stay away if you can’t handle a less-than-happy ending.

The biggest problem plaguing this film is the lack of a protagonist. There’s no hero to this story, not even a tragic one. Both of the Boleyn girls resort to despicable behavior, either by giving in to the King’s raw lust or by trying to sabotage the other’s success in raising their family’s political capital. Morals are compromised all over the board and barely anyone blinks an eye while they do it. The only person who I could feel sympathetic for at all during this film was Elizabeth Boleyn, mother of Anne and Mary. She could not stand what her husband and brother were attempting to do just to raise their stake in life. In the end she is a broken and sad woman, the true victim.

It’s hard to say who is worse in this film. King Henry is a dubious, arrogant husk of a man, drunk on power and lust. Thomas Boleyn is a wretched father who is willing to sacrifice the dignity of not one but two of his daughters in order to increase his standing and “honor” in the world. And, at times, both of the Boleyn girls themselves are just as bad, either as a smug mistress or a shrewish temptress. Both have tasted power and want to hold on to it. If not for some resolution between the girls at the film’s end, this would be a four-way tie for the worst character involved.

Without a proper protagonist to invest in, I found myself reacting to the events of the film instead of absorbing them. No scene better emphasizes this point than the rape scene. Anne has finally gotten Henry to give in to all of her demands and tries to halt his advances still but he is so filled with lust and rage that he ends Anne’s little games and rapes her. The scene is brutal but I didn’t feel sorry for Anne. Instead, I was shocked and appalled by how far these characters had spiraled downward.

In some ways, The Other Boleyn Girl is like a train wreck in slow motion. It’s not that it’s a bad film. It’s just that the story it tells progressively gets worse and worse and leaves you at the bottom of a well of despair. The cinematography, sets and costumes were all pretty good but this heavy-handed piece of historical fiction knocked the wind out of me. Not in a good way either.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5