DVD REVIEW: LAND OF THE LOST ☆☆☆

Here's another popular entertainment I'm not really familiar with, the old "Land of the Lost" TV series. I hear it was enjoyably cheesy; cheap, tasteless sets, hoary gimmicks with stop-motion dinosaurs, and not-so-awe-inspiring scenery of mattes and models meant to evoke the wonder of early exotic world movies like "King Kong" and "The Lost World." Unlike the 2009 big-budget, Universal Studios remake, the original show was meant, if it failed because of how kitschy it was, to be light-hearted action-adventure entertainment.

The Universal/Will Ferrel remake is far from what the show was in terms of tone, if you can say the filmmakers aren't poking fun at it. '09's "Land of the Lost" is a huge, CGI comedy with lots of potty humor and lots of Will Ferrel, which may equal why most audiences and critics hated it; the movie was one of the, if not the single, biggest disappointment for the summer movie season and hit Universal hard when a lot of their other tentpoles failed to get audiences. Was there just too much sexual innuendo and Will Ferrel doing his overly "dimwitted showman" routine? Maybe, but...I ended up liking the movie, and not really for potty jokes and Will Ferrel, but for how the filmmakers managed to contain it.

How the jokes and gags, the countless comedic, huge action CGI sets pieces, are presented here are not in your face. That is a big problem with most all-out comedies, because they do get in your face, get too close for comfort, laughing at their own jokes, and making mockery of the audience. I felt differently for "Land of the Lost."

Will Ferrel, who does a lot of his usual stuff here, is surprisingly not annoying, nor is Danny McBride and Anna Friel as Will and Holly, or Jorma Toccone as Chaka, or even the Sleestaks or the T-Rex. The movie is, again, surprisingly, grounded to earth, and I think it's because all of the jokes and gags and Will Ferrel are on a leash that we are allowed to laugh at them (in the "with them" way). The jokes themselves, and the movie, aren't really anything special or very funny, but you allow yourself to giggle and if not at least smile all the way through. For all of the cheesiness, the bad jokes, and even the way it is all utilized in a full CGI, sound stage world, it's captured nicely. I thank the writers, and it's director Brad Silberling, who has done movies like this before mixing big budget and comedy with "Casper" and "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events," and the results have all either been unique or have worked. I even thank Universal for possibly having final cut when they could have let everyone go all out and let the dog off the leash. "Land of the Lost" works. The movie is enjoyable, and I think for most critics that might be giving it too much credit, but what else do you need?

Maybe some box office...Oh, yeah.

So, who is to blame for "Land of the Lost's" bad turn-out, anyway? Brad Silberling? The Writers? Will Ferrel? Universal? The audiences? I don't know. I say the Sleestaks, they were always so much trouble. Wow, that was a tasteless joke. But, hey, it works!
Piece of Trivia (because I thought it was so cool that I noticed it!): When the ice cream truck falls through the portal, and subsequently when the raptors are attacking it, the jingle heard from the truck's speakers is the music box version of "Ellie's Theme," the main motif from the movie "Up." "Land of the Lost's" composer, Michael Giacchino, also composed for "Up."

CIRQUE DU FREAK: THE VAMPIRE'S ASSISTANT ☆☆ 1/2

This is interesting: Brothers Paul Weitz and Chris Weitz have both directed teen action vampire movies that are being released this fall. Chris the second in a quadrant of hugely successful, teenybopper vampire movies based on a series of books this side of "Harry Potter," the "Twilight" series, and Paul "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant," also based on popular kid reads; the movie is a more visual, Shakespearian-style freaky fun-fest for the Gothic, and though it looks great the show is not a very serious or dangerous piece as the first "Twilight," while that was mostly overly sappy, held well with the suspense.

Interestingly, rumors in the trades say Chris Weitz will direct the final in the "Twilight" movies, which never needed the numbers on opening weekend to green light the rest in the series; "New Moon" isn't even out yet and the last film is already in pre-production. We will see how "Cirque du Freak" handles, but I doubt it will be as popular and that any more movies will be made; just because the movie has vampires doesn't mean it will be as successful as "Twilight." Thankfully, the filmmakers of "The Vampire's Assistant" probably never intended that, but tell it to the execs at Universal.

I like Paul Weitz as a director. He has a more stylized approach than his brother (who is more laid back), and brings more humor out of the material. We saw this in "American Pie," a movie he was given soul credit for though it was co-directed by Chris. Actually, "The Vampire's Assistant" is the first movie Paul directed on his own without the help of Chris, and I think he's proven himself. The movie is a zippy, darkly comedic fantasy action film that is well thought out and has tremendous fun with the material. But.....the big problem is what does it in.

Why doesn't the movie become serious, or suspenseful, when it needs to be? When things go down, when a lot of black-clad, evil vampires come stomping out to taunt the good vampires, why don't they seem more menacing? Where is the tension between these two groups of vampires? Where is the sentimentality? Where is the relationship between Darren and Crepsley, or the relationship between Darren and Rebecca, or with Evra, or with his family? The movie centers on Darren and Steve too much, and though it's important, never spans out to Darren and the Freaks. I don't care anyway, really, the characters aren't all that interesting.

Chris Weitz directed "The Golden Compass," his first tackle at the big budget, CGI heavy fantasy genre that didn't play well when released a few years back. That film, despite being very bland of emotion or direction, had good characters, and was very character driven. "The Vampire's Assistant" has a lot of various, distinctive personalities: The Freaks and the zealous suburbanites, but I could care less about them.

Again, I like Paul as a director, and he gave "The Vampire's Assistant" a lot of good, stylized action, and a lot of dark humor toward the life of the Cirque du Freak. I even liked the script written by Paul and established screenwriter Brain Helgeland (I didn't like that John C. Reilly had all the best lines, who, by the way, does a great job here).

But, if the movie was meant to become dangerous, why doesn't it?

"Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant" is, sadly, another throw away fantasy series opener I'm sure won't extend to the rest of the books. But, it deserves to. I liked "The Vampire's Assistant," alright, and the series has potential and should continue, maybe even try harder and better for the next installment. If it gets the chance.

Again, we will see.

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE ☆☆ 1/2

Surprisingly, I have never read the Maurice Sendak book. No one read it to me as a kid and I hadn't taken an interest in reading to look at it myself. And being an adult (actually having a love for books) I just never sought it out. But, that doesn't mean I'm not unfamiliar.

I knew it had a boy dressed in animal pajamas, and I knew it had huge, benign monsters - and that they are all jollily crazy. WILD. I knew it had a distinct look (as a kid it wasn't my taste). And - even though I didn't know why - I knew the book itself was a popular piece of literature, at the very top of the list, I would think, of the most renowned and lovable children's books ever written.

But, I still didn't know what to expect of the first feature film adaptation of "Where The Wild Things Are," directed by Spike Jonze and produced by Warner Bros, Tom Hanks and Sendak himself. I figured it had to be good. I liked "Adaptation," one of Jonze's only features before "Wild Things," and though I expected his style so unique to that film would have a different twist on the material, I still thought something special would come out of it, mostly because Mendak gave his blessing, actually had hand-picked, for Jonze to direct the film. And Tom Hanks' Playtone label has produced some good adaptations of famous children's books; Robert Zemeckis' "The Polar Express" from Chris Van Allsburg's book, and last years young adult novel "City of Ember," being a view. Not to mention having old and young (and hopefully younger) fans of the book riding on the shoulder's of the prestige of the filmmakers like their conscious, saying, "Don't screw this up! We grew up with this book. Do it right."

But, "Where The Wild Things Are," didn't seem like the parable film that it was expected to be. Why? For one, and I say this a lot, and I think I've said it a number of times in my reviews this year, is that was there really a lot of story to begin with? Enough "plot" to hold for a feature film of more than ninety minutes? Naturally, no. I don't think the book was written to keep interest for more than ten minutes. It only had a few pictures to dictate action and fewer lines of description and dialogue. Of course it would. It's a kid's book. But, Hollywood being the power that it is wanted to bank on it. Now, I'm not saying the book, or any other, couldn't be made into a feature. You just expand the story, create more. More characters, more plot, more conflict. And "Wild Things" definitely is expanded, and expanded well. Dave Eggers (co-writer of the ferociously witty "Away We Go") and Jonze himself wrote the script, and they did a good job. They gave the Wild Things personalities, gave Max more room to breath, and gave more interactions between them all. It's a smart script, and really delves into Max and what being a kid is really like, especially, in Max's case, a overly rambunctious one. And the thing I liked best about the movie is how all the Wild Things personalities reflect a part of Max, and his struggle to deal with all of that emotion. So, the script is smart with emotion, but, weirdly enough, isn't very emotional.

You'd think a kid's book film version would have emotion. Most of all kid's films, and books, have emotional underpinnings and are better story devises, and kids respond to them better than humor and action set pieces. Why didn't "Wild Things" have any emotional subtext. It had a lot of conflict of Max and the Wild Things, but where was the emotion? The sadness? The anger? The joy? All this is crucial to everything that happens in the story, and though it is written well and filmed well, written with emotion, it is never interpreted as such. This is the film's biggest problem. Though I never read the book I would think the story needed an emotional arc. All stories do, and all main characters do. When Max finally leaves the Wild Things and heads for home, why don't we see his sadness at leaving his new friends? And his revelation? Or his joy at hugging his mom on returning home? His regret? I'm not asking for a Disney production. I'm not asking for big emotional moments a la Steven Spielberg. I'm not asking for swelling strings or lots of tears. I'm asking to feel something. Anything. That's all.

I might be being a bit harsh. I'm sure Jonze directed the movie with the intent. The actors certainly gave good performances; two of the only live actors in here, Max Records as Max and Catherine Keener as his mom. The movie's voice actors, which include an all-star cast, have a blast with the roles of the Wild Things, too. Especially James Gandolfini as Carol. A very good voice job. The actors play the emotion. No doubt. You see that. The movie, and Jonze, just can't express it.

Though Jonze's production for the film is intriguing. He didn't produce "Wild Things" with a big budget, lavish sets, flashy camera work, or special effects and, more impressively, didn't go full CGI for the Wild Things. Only their faces are animated, while the rest was all puppetry. This works. The Wild Things are real, in a real world. They're tangible. I liked this approach. Jonze created realism. It's Max's imagination, but it's real to us. And it's real to Max.

But, one other thing I didn't like about Jonze's directing approach was his camera work. The shot's were uninteresting, and though the photography, I imagine, was meant to convey the exact realism, it wasn't too impressive, either. And the shaky camera. I would think that was meant to show Max as the wild child that he is by always keeping the camera moving and bouncing around. It seemed like the right aesthetic choice, but it didn't work here.

All in all, "Where the Wild Things Are" doesn't covey the emotion of the story, though it's written to be that way, and the actors do it that way, but the movie never interprets it that way. If I were a fan of the book I'd say it is a disappointment. Other than that, some great writing, some great acting, and Jonze overall told a good story. His approach was just halfway through the threshold. He just needed to step completely over.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY ☆☆ 1/2

Imagine a horror movie made just as cheaply as you could think, utilizing some really basic effects like video Photoshop, library sound effects, wire or string, and your overall imagination, all put to a basic HD video camera actors are given themselves to shoot with. Kind of like a 15-year-old kid was given a camera and told to make the scariest movie he could; only that kid was Oren Peli, an adult with no filmmaking experience, a modest budget of 15,000 bucks, and the movie he made just happened to go mainstream and be called the scariest horror mockumentary since "The Blair Witch Project." Now, I wouldn't say that, but.....

....Aesthetically, the movie is done well, using some of this cheap, but effective moviemaking magic with the small (very, very small) budget to produce a scary romp. And Peli paid for it himself, and used his own house! And it was a nice house, too.

But, is the movie scary?

Yes, it delivers the chills. The jumps-from-your-seat, the gasps, and the screams. I think it might depend what audience you're viewing the movie with, though. Is there a packed theater? Lots of teenaged girls? If the atmosphere in the room is frightened, then most likely you will scream along with them. Or maybe you're seeing the movie with a small crowd, or home alone at night with all the lights turned off. The movie might have a different effect on you by how you watch it, but it should scare you either way, I think.

Is it the scariest moc-doc since "Blair Witch?" No, I don't think so. "Blair Witch" was a bit more clever with it's storytelling, and had more screams to offer. "Paranormal" is a good story, and had a lot of good scares, but just wasn't enough to really be anything special.

But "Paranormal Activity" deserves it's praise. Oren Peli created a good scary movie with the smallest means possible (almost like he purchased a do-it-yourself horror moviemaking kit), and came out with something that could have easily been a fiasco and toted around as the best horror movie ever made (Ed Wood, anyone?). "Paranormal" had a good story, good actors, was structured well in the editing room, and, again, had those cheap gimmicks like easily closing a bedroom door, ruffling the sheets, swinging a chandelier, and using those simple sound effects to give that effect a benevolent demon was in the house. Who says anyone can't make a scary movie? I say get your friends, chip in some cash to get a nice quality camera, shoot in your house, and make a spectre out of pillow sheets. Who knows? You might just create something special, enough that all the world wants to see it.

DVD REVIEW: TRICK 'R TREAT ☆☆ 1/2

Finally. Halloween couldn't have come sooner.

After a two year delay, Warner Bros. releases Michael Dougherty's (co-screenwriter of "Superman Returns" and "X2: X-Men United") "Trick 'r Treat" on DVD under Warner Premiere. For a while, I was worried that WB kept pushing back the movie because of lack of quality, and that my craving to finally see "Trick 'r Treat" would turn into numbing disappointment, my hopeful candle blown out and my smug jack-o-lantern face smashed into bits and pieces of squashed pumpkin. Thankfully, that isn't the case.

If there is one thing wrong with "Trick 'r Treat," it's what I expected it to be, and is really the only thing disappointing about it, simply that it could've been more. Well, that's just my thoughts; not many people really expect a horror movie about Halloween to really be anything special, would they? What? Why? Because it's Halloween. It's a kids holiday, something only marketed at kids, for kids and with something like "TRT," marketed instead for teenagers. Except me, because I love Halloween. Not really what All Hallow's Eve represents, but more so how it looks. To me Halloween is it's own fantasy world, with a rich visual decor of juxtaposing bright oranges, darker than dark blacks, and a mingling of other colors to create an eerie atmosphere; and the whole thing a hauntingly beautiful gothic look. Twisted trees, dense, ethereal fog, bright falling leaves, derelict Victorian-style houses like something out of Edgar Allen Poe. And some really interesting monsters: witches, ghosts, goblins, werewolves, vampires, all intertwined into one fun holiday of mayhem and mischief. You know what I mean, what I'm describing. You've seen it before, and imagined it in you dreams, what a fun-creepy world of chaotic mischief would be like. Writer/Director Michael Dougherty brought it to life, here in "Trick 'r Treat" for all to see. He is without a doubt Halloween's biggest fan, and growing up with those hauntingly visual dreams he has created a quintessential Halloween world, one we all imagine is the right one. This is what I love most about "Trick 'r Treat," there is now a movie that is about Halloween and is set in the right place. Imagine setting Oz in Louisiana. Or Middle Earth in Kentucky.

As for the story of "TRT," it's done in anthology, another thing Dougherty is a huge fan of. It's not that terribly clever, the way all the stores intertwine into each other, but it's satisfying. Most of the surprises in the movie are convincing and, even though not as witty, seem right. Not many interesting characters, either, but they are engaging enough for the way Dougherty depicts them in the context of the Halloween tradition. Laurie worried about her "first time," Rhonda respectful of Halloween, but scared as to what will be found at the quarry, Steven Wilkins also respectful, but naive about his after-dark killing spree, Mr Kreeg secluded in his simple, hermit life, despising Halloween, and Emma sick and tired of the childish Halloween game play. All these characters have intrepid, frightened or pessimistic views of the Holiday, and all revelations come full circle. Some characters get theirs, others get redeemed, and others get pay back. Again, not all that interesting, but gratifying. You get your monies worth. Hey, it's interesting enough for Halloween. It gets it's due in "Trick 'r Treat." But, I hope someone else takes the world of Halloween and brings it to another level.

Great technical stuff: photography by Glen MacPherson, editing by Robert Ivison, terrific production design by Mark Freeborn, and a loud, bang-up score a-la Alan Silvestri by Douglas Pipes (for which Michael Dougherty paid for himself, he is just as big a fan of big orchestra, melodic film music as much as I am.)

Happy Halloween.

ZOMBIELAND ☆☆

Can zombies get any gorier, or any funnier? Not with "Zombieland," that's for sure.

I didn't enjoy this movie trying for bloody laughs and not really getting anywhere with it. Nor did I like the movie trying for good characters, though distinctive, weren't very interesting, and I didn't like these guys and gals interacting when it was supposed to be sentimental and it really wasn't.

And Bill Murray? Well, lets just throw him in there for some good old laughs and some throwaway gags involving "Ghostbusters." Possibly the worst part of the whole movie's eighty minute running time.

And what about the zombies? For a movie that's meant to be about zombies, killing zombies and laughing our heads off when it all makes a gory mess, there wasn't much of really any zombies, or zombie killing. Sure, there's a nice ending killin' at a theme park, but that's about it.

So what do we get more of? Characters or zombies? I say neither.

This is the first time I disagreed with a mass positive reception of a movie, both from audiences and critics. I honestly couldn't see what got them. Maybe it was Bill Murray.

THE INVENTION OF LYING ☆☆☆

Here's another film opening this week that tries for some drama when it's mostly comedy.

At least that's what the marketing plan says, but guess what, it lied. New comedic lead and British funnyman Ricky Gervais brings something more to "The Invention of Lying," a mix of drama and comedy. The movie works this way, if a little oddly.

Gervais stars and co-produces/co-writes/co-directs this very simple, small production about an alternate world where no one can lie, has lied, or will lie, and Gervais' Mark Bellison is the guy who finds out when in depression and desperation that he can "make up" truths and people, who are utterly gullible, readily accept them (the word "lie" and it's components are never used). What makes this movie good is, for one, Gervais, who has terrific comic timing, and for good measure that sheepish grin that makes me giggle: he spills out utterances, stutters, starts and stops whole sentences when his character tries explaining something in frustration, or is in confusion and tries to voice it. Whenever he does this I crack up, and I admit after seeing him in "Ghost Town" last year, with the same comedic style, this was the only reason I saw this movie. I think I'm becoming a fan of Ricky, and my surprise that "The Invention of Lying" was something more, when he also co-wrote and co-directed the film, Gervais will most likely end up on my, and I hope everyones, list of great A-list comedic actors working right now.

But, let me go back to that "something more" part. Gervais starts the first half of the movie as you would expect, going through this man's life as a poor film screenwriter (who can make up great material better than a screenwriter?!) and his cohorts and bosses despise him, also for the reasons you would expect: he's fat and ugly. His first date has the same opinions. This first half is mainly characters "voicing" what's on their mind's, where every other line is complete, unabashed, utter truth. When Mark first meets his date, Anna (Jennifer Garner), one of the first things she says is that she just finished masturbating, and that she'd like to continue knowing now how ugly her date is and that she probably wouldn't get anything tonight, or want to. It all goes pritty much like this, but it's funny, well written, with some clever dialogue executed nicely by a good cast ("I've always hated you." "What...?" "Hated you." "Oh, I didn't know that." "Yeah, a lot of people knew it, and I also turned a lot of them against you."), and some smartly ridiculous one liners ("I'm a one armed, German space explorer!"). Oops, I got a little off here, let me get back to that "something more" thing.

Somewhere along half way through, Gervais suddenly goes dramatic. In a scene where a character is near death, Mark does a teary monologue. When the rest of the movie is comedy, with no hint-ful tidbits of dramatic foreshadowing, I didn't know whether to laugh or get teary eyed myself at the performance Gervais gave. It was a bizarre performance, and a bizarre turn for the movie. Was Gervais going black comedy, or was he really going emotional? By the end of the movie, you realize, it was emotional, and the rest of the movie goes that way. "The Invention of Lying" than takes that twist to become the sort of philosophical mind juice that most comedies end up feeding us when they want to give you a "life lesson." "Lying" is no exception, but the turn worked, and made sense, and was still funny, thoughtful and touching. I guess only Gervais could have pulled it off, and he did here.

The whole lying thing sort of flies past at some point when the last half goes that dramatic route, and becomes that mind juice, after Mark tells one great, big lie, and turns everyone over heels (I won't tell you what the lie is, but I think if you're the type of person who believes in it you might be upset to learn that it was represented as a lie in the first place). The scene where Mark tells everyone about this lie is the funniest set piece in the movie, and I guarantee it will make you laugh. "Lying" then sticks with the huge after effects of this lie, while also having Mark trying to win over Anna. This story path will go on until the end of the movie, and even though it's a nice story turn and works, I wish "Lying" would have remained about the invention of lying through the rest of the movie. Well, that's just me.

"The Invention of Lying" worked, and I liked it, but it didn't suit me every well. See this movie, anyway, it might suit you. Gervais is funny, the movie is funny, and the rest of the cast delivers the funny, too (surprisingly, from the few A-list cameos in the film). And for you film buffs out there, you will get a kick out of the pseud-Hollywood Lecture Films studio where Mark works as a screenwriter. I just died when the films they end up making are nothing but intellectuals in tweed sitting in a "it's story time"-like set-up blandly reading the script rather than actors and sets playing the movie. Ah, everyone loves to poke fun at Hollywood, even filmmakers themselves.