The cost of love (Terrible horror films my wife has made me sit though)

Anyone can celebrate Halloween by making a list of the ten best horror films of all time. And most of those lists will have some combination of Jaws, Psycho, Halloween, The Exorcist, Evil Dead 1 or 2, and Alien, along with a couple others that are more to the writer's individual taste. So instead, I'd like to celebrate something foul and odious. It's no secret that A) my wife likes horror films and B) my wife has hideous taste in films. These two components combine to create a toxic viewing experience from which I will eventually have to shield my daughter. If it's not too late...

But, here are five of the very worst horror films my wife has forced me to watch.

Deadly Friend (1986) - I can think of no filmmaker today who is less consistent than Wes Craven. Can it possibly be true that the same man who made Wes Craven's New Nightmare also made Vampire In Brooklyn? Can the same man be responsible for Scream and Shocker in seven short years? It appears so. While there may be no pattern for this uncommonly cerebral horror filmmaker (I've rented many a bad Craven movie just to listen to the commentary), no way to tell if you're getting a Red Eye or a Cursed, there is one hard and fast rule - Wes Craven should never, ever make films about robots.

That's right, Deadly Friend is about the previously unknown peril of putting your dead friend's brain into the robot that you created. So, ladies and gents, if you ever happen to create a robot, please don't put your friend's brain in said robot... even if she was kinda cute, sorta liked you, and died violently. Aside from the absurd premise, the film is poorly acted, looks ugly and cheap, and is one of the most boring films Craven has ever made. To be fair, it does have one interesting use for a basketball, but you can probably find that on You Tube. Oh wait... I just saved you 90 minutes.

Sssssss (1973) - No, I didn't just fall asleep at the keyboard, nor did Allison attempt to write another column. This little-seen flick tries to be the snake-version of The Fly (the 1958 original, since the superior remake wouldn't exist for another 13 years). Basically an unwitting young man is turned into a snake by his mad scientist employer; which displeases both our hero and the scientist's daughter, who fancies the soon-to-be-slithery lad. It's not a terrible idea, it's just a complete lack of follow-through. It's a dreadfully boring film without much pay off till the very end. It's not laughably bad, it's just deadly dull. As my wife said 'Ssssssucks'.

Demonic Toys vs. Puppet Master (2004) - This winner was recommended by my sister-in-law, proving that she should never, ever be allowed to babysit. I vaguely remember Puppet Master and/or Demonic Toys movies, a couple or so each, running at 3:00am in the morning on Cinemax West 2 or what not. Of course, those straight-to-video horror franchises and Die-Hard rip-off action films flamed out in the late 1990s, replaced by kids with HD camcorders making horror films in their backyard. So this could almost count as nostalgic. Not so much. Starring a 33-year-old Corey Feldman as the great-nephew of the fabled original Puppet Master, this down-on-his luck toymaker somehow has a 17 year-old daughter. So either the toymaker is supposed to be older or his kid is supposed to be younger, but they fail on both counts. Thus their interaction has a distinctly Hubert Humphrey vibe throughout.

Aside from that, the film basically attempts to copy the plot of Halloween 3: Season Of The Witch, with a dash of Small Soldiers tossed in for good measure. Oh, and it's PG-13, so any of the gory violence that you might want from a battle between a crazed toy battle is not to be found here. It's dull, it's terribly acted, and the previously 'demonic toys' are now supposed to be quasi-heroic. Not since Jason saved the day in Freddy Vs. Jason (only after committing nearly every onscreen murder) has a moral defection made less sense. Do yourself a favor and just rent Child's Play.

The Gingerdead Man (2005) - Gary Busy, meet 'rock bottom'. Gary Busey (in person) plays a spree killer who is executed, only to magically come back to life in the form of a giant, wise-cracking gingerbread cookie (voice only). From there, he spends the entire movie on a single set, slowly exacting vengeance on the family who sent him to the chair. If this seems like a Z-grade good time, it's not. The production values are non-existent, the characters never leave the bake shop, and the fabled gingerbread man barely shows up on camera. This is the kind of film that might have worked with an actual budget, but as a no-budget slasher film, it's just foul-tasting.

The Worst Witch (1986) - This TV movie isn't technically a horror film, but I was recently forced to endure it as part of the Halloween spirit. For the record, the second film of the night, The Strangers, was much much better. This adaptation of a childrens' book stars Tim Curry, Diana Rigg, and Fairuza Balk. Bulk, it seems, hit her attractiveness peak at twelve - poor thing (Tim Curry apparently agrees). Basically this movie concerns a school for child witches, as they learn how to master the art of witchcraft.

Imagine a remake of Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone - directed by you, filmed in your house and your back yard. That's about the production level of this one. The special effects would have been bad for a music video of that era, the songs are terrible, and even a singing Tim Curry fails to elicit anything other than unintentional guffaws. Feast your eyes on the above musical number. Not only is it not Rocky Horror Picture Show, it's not even Muppet Treasure Island.

Untraceable (2008) - I thought I would like this one because I like the director. Wow, was I mistaken. This may go down as the worst, most repulsive movie of 2008. It is incredibly ironic that while teen-skewing horror films like Saw and Hostel get decried as 'torture porn' and are blamed for the downfall of civilization, this adult-targeting 'grown-up' thriller is far more gruesome, far more perverse and, due to its blatant hypocrisy, ten-times more infuriating than any bad slasher film of late. Directed by the usually great Gregory Hoblit (Primal Fear, Frequency, Fallen), this sordid little number casts Diane Lane as an FBI agent who must track down a serial killer who is slowly torturing his victims to death on the internet. The gimmick is, the more people log on, the quicker the victim dies.

Of course, considering the sickeningly painful and drawn out scenarios set up, the mass log-ons may in fact qualify as mercy. People are cut to ribbons, then placed pinned to a chair so they can slowly bleed to death from their wounds. Victims are tied to a chair with giant heat lamps pointed at them so they can slowly burn to death. And then there's the bit involving battery acid. The issue is not that these traps are ghoulish, but that they are drawn out and the viewer is forced to watch unbearable agony and suffering for minutes at a time, and then we are lectured about today's voyeuristic society. This movie is the only one I have seen of late that truly qualifies as torture porn. Aside from the bland acting, cliched screenplay, and lack of an ending, this is the rare movie that I would classify as immoral, in that it revels in pain and then lectures us for not turning away.

To be fair, there are many cheesy horror films that were passable and even fun. The above Mega-Snake is one of the better direct-to-DVD horror films of late, in that you actually see the giant snake, frequently and in detail, as well as the carnage it inflicts. And although it was my choice, I heartily recommend the self-referential satire Murder Party. But I do not recommend any of the movies above. They are all so bad, they're scary.

Scott Mendelson

"But I am the chosen one!" (2nd Harry Potter 6 trailer goes online)

It's a far more conventional trailer than the Tom Riddle-centric teaser from this summer. But it still looks incredibly polished and very impressive. Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince is one of the very best books, and this is shaping up to be one of the very best movies in the series. Enjoy.

Scott Mendelson

High School Musical 3 grosses $42 million (Scott Mendelson hides in shame)

Scott Mendelson is still hiding in shame and embarrassment. So today's quick box office mea culpa will be written by a guest writer. Me, Allison Mendelson.

That's right, Scott Mendelson is sending his fourteen-month old daughter to defend him. Loser, coward, infidel!

"And I have to ask, who was floating this stunning stupid notion yesterday that HSM3 was some sort of game-changing new-metric phenomenon of kids seeing the same movie multiple times in the opening weekend to a degree that was just off the charts?" -- David Poland - Movie City News

Well, my father was kind of one of those idiots. We both agree that the idea of repeat viewings in a single weekend was a little dumb, but yes, dad thought it would be a monster weekend. No wonder it takes him five minutes to dress me. Looking at the Hannah Montana numbers, he stupidly thought that HSM3 would do half the per screen average, and end up with about $85 million. He was so sure that HSM3 would be a far more mainstream product than Hannah Montana and attract people who wouldn't be caught dead at a G-rated 3D concert film.

Alas, he was wrong. Really wrong. He's usually smarter than this, but wowsers, did he blow it this weekend. His prediction stunk worse than my last diaper. While his $82 million guess was obviously pie in the sky, I too am shocked that it didn't even beat the October weekend record. We're not saying the movie is a failure. God forbid that dad raise the sort of child who labels a movie as a disappointment because it didn't live up to my inflated expectations. But it did literally 1/4 of the per screen average of Best Of Both Worlds. Considering you were serving the same audience and that (theoretically) High School Musical 3 could draw people that Best Of Both Worlds could not, we're all a little stunned at the number.

By any normal rationale, $42 million for a movie that cost $15 million is a great number. I guess dad was just expecting something more epic (if he wants epic, wait till he see show long I keep him up tonight). Of course, dad swears that it could theoretically pull a Phantom Menace and pull in another $35 million next weekend (I liked that movie just fine, but then I'm just a 14-month infant). But otherwise, especially if the Friday to Saturday drop suggest long term frontloading, it may struggle to even hit $100 million. What was less likely? That it would earn $80 million on opening weekend or that it would fail to earn $100 million total?

But what do I know? I'm just a baby. Well, I knew that High School Musical 3 wasn't going to do $85 million last weekend, that much I did know! Yeesh, and this is the guy who's supposed to take care of me and install character? Between my dad who has lost his box office 'mojo' (no pun intended) and my mom who likes A View To A Kill, Grease 2, and Batman & Robin, maybe I should take over this column. I even have fill-in writers all lined up. And they didn't think High School Musical 3 would do more than $50 million either!

Allison Mendelson

How Marvel can do right - cast Jon Hamm as Captain America

I didn't get to see Mad Men till just before the first season came out on DVD/BluRay. Everything you've heard about the show is true. It really is that good. And Jon Hamm is truly the real deal. The idea occurred to me when I first started watching, but since I had not seen him in anything else I was reserving judgment. Well, last night he did a smashing job hosting Saturday Night Live, anchoring what was easily the best all-around show of the season (go here for clips). So yes, without further hesitation, let us state the obvious - Jon Hamm would make an ideal Steve Rogers.

He obviously has the look. Tall, somewhat muscular, handsome, with a genuine masculinity that is nearly absent from the male stars of today. His deep, baritone voice only helps a visual that just screams 1950s superhero more so than anyone since Bruce Campell in the late 80s/early 90s (and, no offense, Hamm is a better actor). If they ever reboot Superman yet again, and if Warner has the decency to cast someone who is old enough to shave, the guy would make a perfect Clark Kent. But, being realistic, there is another vacancy in the super hero film world that he would be just as appropriate for. Most importantly, his commanding presence would make the Steve Rogers scenes just as compelling as the Captain America action scenes.

I'm not the only person to say this, and I may not even be the first to write about it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make an obscene amount of sense. He is a consummate actor, a genuine screen presence, he can do drama and comedy without breaking a sweat, and he's unknown enough to not produce comparative snickers when he puts on the suit. And, perhaps most importantly to Marvel and co, he's probably gonna come really cheap to boot. Why spend $20 million on Brad Pitt when you can have Jon Hamm for $1 million?

To paraphrase The West Wing, Jon Hamm may not be their first choice... but he should be their last choice, because he's the best choice. This is the climactic bit from the season 01 finale of Mad Men, but it's not technically a spoiler.

Scott Mendelson

Marvel screws up again (Incredible Hulk deleted scenes)

I wrote back in June that, although I didn't care in the slightest for the Hulk 2.0 reboot, I was holding off complete judgment until I got a look at those fabled 45 minutes of deleted material. The infamous dramatic, character building moments that directer Louis Leterrier and star Edward Norton fought over with Marvel and lost, resulting an a nearly character-less and dumbed down smash fest. Well, the DVD/BluRay hit the streets last Tuesday and, alas, my instincts were correct. Many of the issues that I had with the picture would have been lessened if not erased with the inclusion of this new material. Granted, few probably would've wanted to sit through a 170 minute Incredible Hulk movie, but surely there could have been an extra 20 minutes or so to justify including some of the terrific stuff detailed below. The bulk of the footage concerns three things, subplots that resulted in three complete characters being more or less excised from the film.

My favorite material involves the (professional) relationship between General Ross and Major Kathleen 'Kat' Sparr (Christina Cabot). Apparently this character is in the comics, and the presence of this intelligent, opinionated, and fleshed-out female character would have done much to lessen my annoyance at the paper thin character of Betty Ross. There is an obvious mutual respect, if not always trust, between General Ross and Major Sparr, and their scenes allow William Hurt to come off as far less cartoonish and more misguided. The best deleted scene in the set is a conversation between the two of them, where Hurt waxes poetically that Bruce Banner's transformation is one of those rare moments where the universe releases a secret about itself (like the splitting of the atom). In every scene between the two of them, you have professional adults reacting like intelligent adults to a completely insane situation.

Far briefer, but still noteworthy, are the few scenes between General Ross and General Joe Greller (Peter Mensah). These mainly involve the aftermaths of the major action scenes, and it's a fun look at the real world reactions (from the military standpoint) to these comic book plot developments. Again, both of these characters are intelligent and opinionated, and their confrontations brought a credibility to the story that was sorely lacking.

The biggest chunk of footage involves a much more fleshed out subplot involving Dr. Leonard Samson (Ty Burrell), Betty Ross's current boyfriend. While Liv Tyler and Ed Norton still lack chemistry, the scenes involving Burrell are genuinely compelling. I stated back in June that my favorite scene in the film was the quick confrontation between General Ross and Samson, as its the only scene with the dramatic gravitas that much of the deleted footage contains. There is a wonderful moment when the three of them are eating dinner and Ed Norton breaks down in tears after laughing at a humorous anecdote ("It's been awhile since I felt light about anything"). The reason this character and these scenes were cut is pretty obvious - he occasionally acts the pants off of his more famous costars and he is presented as such a sympathetic and morally upstanding person that you end up feeling sorry for him. The best scene is the one below:

Other footage is the fabled alternate opening with a glimpse of the frozen Captain America, as well as scenes that flesh out Major Emil Blonsky (Eric Roth) and make him a more complicated villain. Some of the extra footage in the first act didn't need to be there (just more of Banner running around Brazil). A shocking scene after the bottle factory fight, which clearly displays three body bags, is marred by William Hurt's overacting. And, as mentioned above, the scenes with Betty and Bruce aren't any better than the ones in the final film, even if a few allow Betty to talk like a scientist. And, of course, that aforementioned opening scene is impossible, since it makes no sense until you understand that The Hulk won't letter Banner kill himself (which is why he believes he will survive his climactic airplane drop). That was in the novelization, but I honestly can't remember if that line was in the footage.

Alas, the stuff highlighted above would have made the film far more compelling and, yes, far more entertaining. Yes, the difference is almost as severe as the two cuts of Daredevil. I rented the BluRay purely for the purposes of viewing these scenes. If Universal ever puts out another version with the majority of this footage put back in, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Saw V (2008)

Saw V
2008
89 minutes
rated R (grisly bloody violence and torture, language, nudity)

by Scott Mendelson

What we see right off the bat in Saw V is a series trying to regain its footing by pulling back. After the completely absurd Saw IV, they have nowhere to go but a little more down to earth. Like Friday The 13th, the fifth chapter represents an alleged new beginning. This is easily the smallest-scale of the sequels, and it has the feeling of a massively scaled down budget. That does creates a problem as many scenes are simply a couple characters walking through a hallway, or one character sneaking into a building. It's not a good film, and it almost has a whiff of 'direct-to-DVD' to it, but I did appreciate the buttoned-down tone.

There will be no plot synopsis, other than to say that the film again picks up right at the end of the previous film, and that the surviving characters all return. First of all, I can't imagine anyone deciding to see a Saw picture based on the story. The fans are either already invested in the long-running John Kramer mythology, or they don't care a whit about plot. Second, one thing I have appreciated about the series is that, because of the complete lack of preview screenings, and the spoiler-free marketing campaigns, the Saw films are among the few major movies that I can go into relatively blind. I'll give you the same courtesy.

From the very start, the opening trap has a logic and near-plausibility that has eluded this franchise since the end of part II. The violence and gore-level has been severely dialed down, with less total violence and gore than any Saw film since the original. There is certainly nothing to match the hideous body-piercing curtain-raiser of Saw III, or the scalping device in Saw IV. The traps are far less elaborate, and far less painful. Similar to part II, the deaths are quick and brutal, rather than drawn out and excruciating. One almost wonders if the filmmakers were annoyed at the series being called 'torture porn' simply because it contained gruesome violence. The problem with the film is the problem that has plagued the series since the get-go. First of all, the Jigsaw philosophy of 'I don't kill people because I put them into positions to kill themselves' has always been abhorrent and naive. I always appreciated the second film as the lone picture to actively call out the foolishness of this thinking. Yes, John is confronted by failure in Saw III, but he continues to rant and rave about 'helping people cherish life' in the next two sequels as well, and on some level we're supposed to be intrigued by his ideas.

Second of all, the Saw sequels have had an obsession with going back to previous entries and showing us a 'behind the scenes' view of the previous traps and plot developments. A solid third of the picture is made up of flashbacks (both new footage and old) to previous scenes from the previous films (even Danny Glover appears in old footage... you can guess which actor does not). I can't speak to everyone who is a fan of this series, but I couldn't care less about seeing how John Kramer set up that 'gun rigged to the door gag' from Saw II. Of course, without those pointless scenes, there is now no way to bring Tobin Bell into the story, so the filmmakers are in a bit of a bind. Good acting versus story progression. The biggest problem, most apparent in the third film, is the idea that John Kramer wants to teach his victims a grand moral. Fair enough, but if John succeeds in that, then the audience doesn't get to see what it came for - ghoulish traps successfully ensnaring their victims. Conversely, if the audience is invested in the character arcs of the victims, such as Saw III's genuinely compelling story of Angus Macfadyen learning to forgive the people who played a hand in his son's death, we don’t root for the traps. We sit there in disappointment as MacFadyen's Jeff fails again and again in making the right moral choice in time to save those in peril.

Maybe the filmmakers realized this, because the last two films have severely dialed down the seriousness of the moral flaw. The last film hilariously was about punishing a cop who cared too much, who saw the good in people too easily (don't want THAT in a cop, do we?). This one is more or less about, well, not trusting your instincts. So, in five films, we've gone to teaching junkies and murderers to appreciate their lives to going after cops who care too much and follow their instincts. I predict in Saw VI that Jigsaw will be punishing people for titling pinball machines, loving their children too much, and driving in the carpool lane unaccompanied. Point being, if you've followed the series this far, you are already aware of these issues and don't care. Me, I just go for Tobin Bell and because it's a quasi-anniversary tradition celebrating the first date with my eventual wife (we met on 10/28/05 and our first date was Saw II - her choice). While far less grand and less entertaining, the film is less over-the-top than Saw IV. And although it's far less ambitious, it's better written and acted than the overwrought and absurd Saw I.

I'm not sure where the Saw franchise can go from here (although a major plot point is left deliberately unresolved), but as long as Tobin Bell is getting his annual acting showcase, then I'll be happy to support the grizzled character actor who ruined the ending of Saw, since I recognized him as the cancer patient and did the math. Although casting Michael Emerson (who had just won an Emmy for portraying a serial killer on The Practice) as the assistant didn't help either.

Grade: C-

The Return of Box Office Bingo! (predictions for Oct 24-26)

It's been awhile since I did the whole weekend box office thing, but now that the holiday season has started more or less, it's time to return the world of meaningless predictions, boastful proclamations of accuracy, and mea culpas. Besides, history will likely be made this weekend, the question is just how much history.

High School Musical 3: Senior Year: $85 million. The general predictions are $40 million. I think they're way off (and Box Office Prophets agrees with me). Make no mistake, the above is a cautious estimate based on the math. The first two movies have been rented or viewed on The Disney Channel by something around 50 million people since 2005. The second film scored a whopping 17.2 million viewers on its debut evening back in August, 2007, by far the biggest audience in basic cable history (at $7 a ticket, that would have equaled $120 million). The franchise has sold hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars worth of merchandise and tie-in product over the last few years. For better or worse, this is Grease of the present youth generation. If cult musicals like Mamma Mia and Hairspray can do $30 million, then the sky is the limit for this one.

Hannah Montana: Best Of Both Worlds scored a $45,561 per screen average early this year on 683 screens. Let's assume (and this is a safe assumption) that anyone that showed up for the concert film will likely show up for HSM3 (to say nothing of people like myself, who genuinely liked the first film and likes quality musicals in general). So, let's have fun and do the math for this weekend's 3623 screen release.

$45,561 per screen (obviously not going to happen, but for comparison): $165.1 million
$22,760 per screen (50% off; below the top 25 all-time per screen averages): $82 million
$15,187 per screen (only 33%): $55 million

So basically, at worst it does $55 million and butchers the previous October opening weekend record (Scary Movie 3 - $48 million in 2003). But if it even approaches the per-screen average top-20, we could get something dangerously close to a $100 million weekend.

Additionally, this will be a battle between epic frontloading and the weekend matinee factor. As most people reading this site know, kids films often see a huge uptick (as much as 50% increase) on Saturday and Sunday as the matinee business surpasses the Friday evening numbers. On the other hand, this is the third film in a major franchise, so frontloading could reach Dark Knight/Sex & The City levels. Still, the former should cancel out the latter so we could see something approaching a 3x multiplier (god, I've missed this stuff).

Although this is the definition of a critic-proof hit, the few reviews that have trickled out have so far been positive, giving grownups the possible excuse needed to check it out without kids. A huge percentage of kids who saw the first two will be in the theaters this weekend. A decent amount of kids who have not seen the previous entries will be there, perhaps going with friends, or just wanting to see a (somewhat) big budget, super colorful musical. Older teens and adult women have read all about the teen stars, especially Efron and Tisdale, in their various gossip rags so awareness is covered there. And if you're a parent who just wants to take the kid to the movies and Saw V is sold out, well, it's gotta be better than Beverly Hills Chihuahua, right? Unless you're a male teen without a girlfriend (see your movie choice below) or too old for G-rated confections, you're pretty much a targeted quadrant this weekend.

So, with everything factored in, it's just a matter of how big this will be. I've been wrong before (The Dark Knight, Mars Attacks!), and I've been right when everyone else was wrong (The Mummy, Pearl Harbor). We'll see which column this goes in on Saturday morning. Let's call it at $85 million. I'd 'bet on it'.

Saw V: $25 million. Why, oh WHY, was this not moved to Halloween night? Granted, we're dealing with two big franchises with next to no overlap, but surely Lionsgate would have liked the bragging rights of a number 1 opening weekend? Every Saw film since the original has opened to number 01 (part one came in third place with $18 million, behind Ray and the second weekend of The Grudge).

Putting that aside, the series isn't exactly basking in audience goodwill at the moment. The fourth film was pretty terrible, probably worse than the first film (I'm weird in that I prefer 2 and 3 to the original). The lead character is now definitively dead, so who knows how Tobin Bell is going to return this time? The poster boasts 'you won't believe how it ends', but I'm not sure implausibility is something you want to be boasting about.

Still, this is a dependable franchise that has rooted itself in a deep, tangled story and somewhat complicated mythology. Unlike the many hard-R gore fests that followed in its wake, the Saw franchise has always boasted adult actors playing adult characters. While the acting quality may vary (Danny Glover has rarely been worse than he was in Saw, while Tobin Bell shines in Saw II), enough fans will genuinely want to know what happens next, aside from the usual gore hounds who like the blood and guts. Even if the series will never again hit $30 million on opening weekend, the series is still cheap enough that it will be profitable for years to come.

Pride And Glory: $10 million. As saddened as I was at New Line Cinema's death last winter, it's good to know that Warner Bros. has treated most of New Line's lineup with respect. Sex And The City and Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D were solid smash hits, and Appaloosa is a slow, steady earner. Despite being in release limbo for awhile, this allegedly so-so cop drama is getting a 2585 screen release. It's not gonna break the bank, but good for Warner for not gutting the New Line product that was already in place.

We'll see if my pie in the sky HSM3 prediction pans out. For the record, if the HSM3 numbers are more earthbound, that doesn't mean the film is a 'disappointment', only that I was off the mark. Updates on Saturday if there is anything out of the ordinary.

Scott Mendelson

Nowhere to go but up, right? (Friday the 13th trailer

Friday The 13th

Will it measure up to... uh... the groundbreaking cinematic masterpiece? Frankly, I have no objection to a remake of Friday The 13th. We're not talking about a classic like Halloween. This isn't even A Nightmare On Elm Street, which somehow needs to find someone to measure up to Robert England (aside from that, a remake would be fine, as the kids in the original are pretty bad actors).

This is Friday The 13th folks. It was crap in 1980, and it'll likely still be crap this coming February 13th. Now, if they touch the surprisingly self-referential and hilarious Friday The 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, then they're asking for it! On the other hand, maybe they can remake Friday The 13th Part VII, this time with enough money to allow Jason to, I dunno, actually 'take Manhattan'? Otherwise, I know full-well that my wife is going to drag me to this, probably on opening night. So, I'll put my best face forward, wear my shirt with the collar-up, buy some Skittles, and party like it's 1988!

But then, I'm the guy who thinks that Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is the best, scariest, and most character-driven of the entire franchise.

Scott Mendelson

And, no, I will not be adding Jason Vorhees to my MySpace friends list, thank you much.

Slumdog Millionaire gets an R (and why it may deserve it)

As always, Box Office Mojo has a rundown of the weekly MPAA ratings updates and as usual, there is a bit of news.

Despite my research indicating that Slumdog Millionaire was to be rated PG-13, taken from pages that quickly corrected themselves and thus make me look bad, the film has been somewhat surprisingly slapped with an R rating. And fans are not happy at all. It was rated R for 'some violence, disturbing images and language'. First of all, the movie opens with a somewhat explicit torture scene, and something pretty awful happens just offscreen to a child during the first act. Truth be told, the entire film is pretty intense (although it was heightened by the obscenely loud audio mix at my screening). Aside from general intensity and tone, which would not be a just reason, the main reason I could think of was the possibility that there were more than one 'f-bomb' dropped that I didn't notice. If this is the case, then it's an iron-clad R. The easiest way to lose that PG-13 is to put in more than one variation of 'fuck'. If Danny Boyle and co didn't realize this, or thought they could bluff the MPAA, then they have only themselves to blame.

Many of the complaints are using The Dark Knight as an example of a movie that somehow gamed the system and scored a PG-13 due to big-studio pressure or what not. Hogwash. The movie feels violent, it feels adult, and it feels R-rated. But, judging purely by the content and how its presented, it is a PG-13 film. And it's a good example of how the MPAA correctly operated, basing its rating not on tone or intensity, but on objective onscreen content.

There is no hard profanity and absolutely no sexual content. There is (if I recall) no drug content in the film whatsoever. As for the violence, it's very much managed in a way so as to ensure a PG-13. There is not a drop of blood, and only the appearance of Two-Face qualifies as gore (surely an image that 90% of the ticket buyers are used to and thus weren't shocked by). The many shootings are entirely offscreen, with not a single squib used. The more grotesque violence is offscreen and heavily implied. We don't see a pencil go into a man's head. We don't see The Joker slash a man's mouth open with a knife, but rather the reactions of the bystanders. In fact, much of the violence, as I noted in July, is presented in an obtuse, just offscreen manner that sometimes rendered it difficult to follow on the first viewing.

But back to Slumdog Millionaire. This could all be a case of free-publicity, as the outcry gets the film countless articles and blog entries such as this one as the award season kicks up (all of which will discuss how good the film is). If the R-rating is mainly for language, then I see no reason why those offending F-words can't be removed. If they were there, I didn't even notice them, so it certainly wouldn't harm the film. If the rating is because of the general intensity and tone, then I oppose the rating and believe that Fox Searchlight should appeal. Come what may, a terrific R-rated film has just as much of a shot at the Oscars as a terrific PG-13 rated film, if not more so (higher ratings can sometimes create the impression of being more adult and mature, however faulty that logic really is).

I still believe that the film is appropriate for children 10 and up, especially if parents are in tow for discussion afterward. But again, this is a case of the MPAA seemingly ruling based on objective content, rather than how harsh or light the movie feels. Countless youth-based films that felt younger-skewing were justifiably rated R because of an abundance of profanity (Rushmore, Almost Famous, etc). That doesn't mean that those movies were inappropriate for kids, but they earned their ratings based on the objective rules of the MPAA. It may not always make sense, but the real problems come about when the MPAA does make decisions based on things like 'intensity' or 'it just feels like an R'. If Slumdog Millionaire was rated R because of profanity, then it seems like a clear-cut case. I just wish I could remember if there was more than one 'f$$k' in the film.

Scott Mendelson

The (terrible) new Bond theme song, plus five better ones.

This isn't exactly new news, but the new Bond theme is out and it's not very good. Worse, it's very unmemorable. To be fair, most Bond songs are pretty lousy. Yet every time a film comes out, the theme song gets trashed by critics and everyone acts like they're despoiling a scared tradition. At least half of all Bond songs are terrible. Even Goldfinger sounds like a puritan schoolmarm finger-wagging and lecturing her female pupils about the evils of men and their own bodies. And 'Another Way To Die' lives up to the tradition.



But, in the name of trying to stay positive, let us take a brief stroll through five Bond theme songs that are actually good:


A View To A Kill - Duran, Duran (1985)
Easily the worst Bond film ever, but with one of the very best theme songs. It may not make much sense lyrics-wise (many Bond songs, like The Living Daylights, make absolutely no coherent sense), but this is a kick ass rock song that still holds up. Dance into the Fire, indeed.


Nobody Does It Better - Carly Simon (1977)
This Oscar-nominated tune, from the best Roger Moore 007 picture, is the rare Bond song that stands on its own as a love song, set apart from the film in question. It helps that the song doesn't use "The Spy Who Loved Me" as its title, simply slipping it on near the beginning almost unnoticed. It's also one of the few Bond themes that qualifies as a genuinely romantic song.


Live And Let Die - Paul McCartney (1973)
Once again, one of the lesser Bond films produces a worthwhile theme song. This one also works somewhat as a stand-alone rock n' roll song. It's not a great song, but it is undeniably catchy and the lyrics are easy to pick up. It's also one that most people can recognize from the opening bars (you know you can, you know you can, you know you can...).


We Have All The Time In The World - Louis Armstrong (1969)
Again benefiting from not having to use the wordy Bond title for the theme title, this one runs over the end credits and is a charming little ditty. On its own, it's a sweet little song of its own accord. Of course, paired with the movie, it takes on a bitter undercurrent and a tragic pathos.

Goldeneye - Tina Turner (1995)

Written by Bono, this Tina Turner ditty has a nice, steady beat and strong vocals. It is marred only by the inability to logically insert the word 'Goldeneye' into the narrative. It does has an interesting line, 'you'll never know, how I watched you in the shadows as a child', that seems to acknowledge that the Bond musicians of today where the child-fans of the Connery/Moore films. It's a nice touch that gives the song an extra kick.

There are others that work well enough (Licence To Kill is a decent Gladys Night song save the awkward insertion of the title), and others that are really lousy (The Living Daylights, Goldfinger, Die Another Day, The The World Is Not Enough). To this day, I admire Tom Jones' ability to make anything even resembling a song with the word 'Thunderball' in the title. Still, next time someone complains about how this artist or that artist made the worst Bond song ever, something that doesn't compare to the canon, call them on it. The James Bond films may be a proud tradition, but their theme songs are usually not.

Scott Mendelson