The Top Fifty Movies of the Past Decade (Part I)

In the interest of keeping some of these under wraps as it were, I will be revealing these backwards starting at fifty. Somethings to take into consideration: I have seen many movies and I'm kind of a snob. I do not watch as many foreign movies or documentaries as I should, but I am working on it. Most of my taste is derived from my father and stuff I've picked up along the way. That being the case, do not look down upon this list, or do. Either way, this is the list, for better or worse.

50. Kill Bill (2003, 2004) Directed by Quentin Tarantino

I don't consider this to be two separate movies as it was released. It was meant to be one, but because of marketing problems with a three hour movie (that were later realized in Tarantino's next project "Grindhouse"), the producers decided to split it into two separate ones. This is one of the more popular movies of the decade and has it's own implications about honor, revenge and love. Tarantino says that it's supposed to be a kick ass exploitation film, but in real life, it's a character piece. I think Tarantino still hasn't gotten past the fact that it's okay to have some emotion in his movies. This was the beginning of his transformation into a mature filmmaker.

49. Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005) Directed by George Clooney

Who would have thought that the guy that guest starred on "The Facts of Life" would go on to such success as a director? While many actors eventually try their hands at directing, not so many of them actually are truly successful. (Warren Beatty, Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood being the obvious exceptions.) George Clooney easily sidles into the directing chair and tells the straightforward story of Edward R. Murrow, one of the few newscasters of the time that stood up for what he believed in during the McCarthy trials of the 1950s. David Strathairn does not even seem himself in the film. He so embodies everything about Murrow that you have a hard time recognizing the actor. It's really too bad that more people won't give Strathairn a chance in the lead role of a movie aside from this one. It's obvious that, when given the opportunity, he knocks it out of the park.

48. Narc (2002) Directed by Joe Carnahan

A little known movie from earlier in the decade follows the murder investigation of an undercover cop. While a lot of the movie is telegraphed earlier in the narrative, it's not the destination but the path as with "The Lord of the Rings" films. You know what's gonna happen the entire time, but it's the matter of getting there that's the exciting part. Something else to take note in this movie: Ray Liotta. Almost twenty years now, he was one of the best actors working. Taking roles that fit him and were popular for the moment. Now, he's reduced to playing the dumb, arrogant cop in "Observe and Report" (a very good movie that's marred by his overacting). Go back and look at this movie, watch his performance, especially his monologue later on in the movie. You'll realize that there's still a good actor in there somewhere, but no one knows what happened to him. Here's hoping he'll be back soon.

47. Adaptation (2002) Directed by Spike Jonze

Charlie Kaufman has become known as the type of screenwriter that messes with the structure of film to the point where it almost makes no sense, "Being John Malkovich" being the epitome of this. The thing about "Adaptation" that sets it apart from the rest is Nicolas Cage. Nicolas Cage is an actor that receives a lot of flack. He has a tendency to overact and pick bad roles. This is another movie to look back on with reverence because of his performance as twins. It is a near perfect film about writer's block with a small bit of smugness always simmering. Luckily for the movie, it never boils over, but it does come quite close.

46. Munich (2005) Directed by Steven Spielberg

It seems that when a celebrity of any kind has any measure of success that they're always measured by it for the rest of their lives. Just ask M. Night Shymalan. Spielberg is one of those directors that has been constantly (and sometimes unfairly) measured by his last movie. When "War of the Worlds" came out, it was a box office success, probably moreso than people expected. But afterwards, there was a weird backlash. People saying that the ending was forced and too happy, the Spielberg ending. When you watch "Munich", you realize there is no Spielberg ending. This is his darkest movie. There are no easy answers, heroism is distrusted and questioned and people die. The one problem with this movie is the way it plays with the facts. That is unforgivable, but this is not a history lesson. It's a movie. And as that, it's an unqualified success. Star making performance from Eric Bana who has sneakily become one of my favorite actors.

45. The Mist (2007) Directed by Frank Darabont

The 2000s were a great year for horror. Different directors took different approaches to this. Frank Darabont gets the award for the Biggest Kick to the Balls Ending. The movie is about a father and son who have to hole up in a grocery store while the town is being attacked by the thickest mist ever. In the mist, there are all sorts of creatures that tear people apart anytime they venture into it, even if you are Andre Braugher. The movie allows the characters to develop instead of forcing them to develop like many movies do nowadays. We see the hysteria happening, piece by piece as people begin to believe the religious fanatic played by Marcia Gay Harden. If you're looking for end of the world, this is the movie to watch. And that ending...still haunts me to this day. Based upon the short story by Stephen King.

44. The 40-Year Old Virgin (2005) by Judd Apatow

Back when I saw this movie in the summer that it came out, I didn't really think that it would be on any top lists of the decade. As it turns out, the movie has aged very well. The jokes are still funny and the performances are the glue that holds everything together. Steve Carrel earns his successful career in this performance. It's a performance of great restraint and subtlety even when he's yelling curse words. He's the type of actor that people don't give credit to because what he's doing is so natural. The fact that he was not nominated for an Oscar for this movie is a travesty. The Academy should have considered considering comedic performances into their nominations before they considered adding five other Best Picture nominations. Something else...Judd Apatow has not made a movie like this since this. "Knocked Up" had a short shelf life and "Funny People" was terrible. I think too many people want to think of him as something he's not. If he goes back to the drawing board and doesn't allow as much improvisation (or at least get people that are better at doing it than Seth Rogen, or at least restrain his actors), then he'll have another movie like this. If he wants to do a drama, do a drama. Dramedy is not your strong suit. Oh yeah and Catherine Keener is one of the hottest middle agers in film history. Her performance, as chronicled by my friend Mike on another blog, is one of the best of the decade. She is a perfect compliment to Steve Carrel.

43. Pan's Labyrinth (2006) Directed by Guillermo Del Toro

This is what happens when you cross a horror director with a fairy tale. We all knew that Guillermo Del Toro had talent, even during "Blade II". But this movie came out of left field in the best way possible. It's a story that children would like, but the way it's told is a bit dark and violent. One of the ways to recognize the impact this film has had on me is the fact that I haven't seen it since I saw it at Great Northern Mall on a blustery winter night. The movie acts like a dream, or a nightmare in some cases. It is as beautiful and poetic with it's images as it is with it's story. Great performances all around.

42. The Devil's Rejects (2005) Directed by Rob Zombie

I know what you're thinking: "You're going through the best movies of the decade and you're including this piece of trash?" While I agree that it is a piece of trash, it is an extremely skillful piece of trash. What Tarantino set out to do with "Grindhouse", Rob Zombie did without all the pomp and circumstance that the previous film had. There were no expectations for this movie whatsoever. With Zombie's first feature film "House of 1,000 Corpses" he showed that he had no talent except for one sequence that still unnerves me. Take that one sequence and make it feature length and you have something that resembles "The Devil's Rejects". For a movie that's so depraved and disgusting, you are compelled to watch the three main characters go through all the motions. Watch them kill these innocent people. And for some reason, you still identify with them in some respects. Now, I'm not saying that I intend on growing a beard and my hair out and teaming up with Sid Haig and Sherri Moon Zombie...well, maybe Sherri Moon Zombie...and killing a bunch of folks. But, the three leads are so good that you understand what's going on at each moment of the terror. They're not stereotypes, they're real people. Now, while I respect the remake of "Halloween" and really respect the sequel to the remake, the main qualm I have with them is that Zombie has a tendency to write this overly vulgar and hillbilly-ish dialogue that takes people out of the moment. In "The Devil's Rejects", it made sense because that's who they were. But giving Michael Myers the background that he came from a stripper mother and a broken home take a lot of the punch out of his character. You begin to believe that if you spit on the wrong hillbilly that he'll become the epitome of evil instead of Carpenter's version where he's just an unstoppable force. Not white trash with an attitude and a mask.

41. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) Directed by Tim Burton

Tim Burton has been one of my favorite directors since the original "Batman" with Nicholson as the Joker. Burton rarely takes a step in the wrong direction. Sometimes, he has a tendency to go over the top with the visuals and this movie ran the risk of him finally running out of steam with his visual style. Even the look of Johnny Depp as Sweeney Todd screams Tim Burton. Needless to say, going into the movie I was extremely hesitant. Oh yeah, and the fact that it was a musical. That worried me. Let me say, seeing the movie proved to be one of the most enjoyable experiences that I've had this decade. It was a classical story, perfect for Tim Burton's directorial style. Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Alan Rickman all turn in fantastic performances and do all their own singing. The movie is truly a diamond in the rough. If you like horror movies, musicals or just plain period dramas, this movie will fill that void for you.

Tigers, Naked Men with Crowbars and Mike Tyson

I've been doing a hell of a lot of bashing lately. It might be because of my mood. As a matter of fact, I do believe that that has something to do with it. However, I still believe that my critiques are valid. They may come off as more bitchy than cogent, but still valid. That being said, this could turn into another bitchfest.

I saw "The Hangover" back when it came out in June. I, like many others, thought it was a very good comedy, perfectly cast. The main problem I had with the movie is the writing. Now, a lot of people that I know that have seen it thought that the writing was top notch. I agree, to a certain extent.

For those of you who don't know (which I doubt are many), the movie concerns a bachelor party gone horribly wrong in Las Vegas. Two friends and a stray try lose the groom to the wedding a few days before it is set to occur. The next couple of hours (movie time, that is) chronicle their search to figure out exactly what happened that night. They go around Vegas and the surrounding area, finding clues and investigating like detectives in hard-boiled fiction from the 1940s.

The movie has a great premise. The main three characters (as well as the cast as a whole) are able to bring the craziness to a workable level in order for it to still seem somewhat believable. But in the third act, everything goes haywire.

Spoiler Alert-

The main problem with the movie is how neatly everything gets tied up in the end. After all that searching around Vegas, getting beaten up by a naked Chinese mob boss, marrying an escort...all that shit, it turns out that the person they've been looking for was on the roof all along. By the time that we realize what's happened, it leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

We spend about an hour and twenty minutes with these people before they realize that their buddy is on the roof with nothing but a sunburn and a bit of dehydration to show for it. I know what you're thinking: "But they were all drugged and couldn't remember what happened to them." True, but I'm not blaming the characters...I'm blaming the writers.

This type of "twist" is just lazy. It was an easy out. All this danger surrounds these people from the time they wake up with a tiger in their bathroom to the aforementioned naked Chinese mob boss. But yet, nothing happened to the guy they were looking for. He's completely injury free, just left on a rooftop to fend for himself.

Granted, that's not the best fate for someone, but as I said, it's a lazy way of tidying up the script. I understand that it's a comedy and there shouldn't be a sad or depressing ending to it, but then again, it should be based somewhat in reality. This is another movie that doesn't play by it's own rules. "Let's make the entire audience believe that Doug is possibly dead but then at the end show that he only has sunburn. Oh man, that'll be classic!"

I'm not saying Doug should have been dead. I'm not saying he should have lost a finger or anything, but there could have been a better explanation to where he was for the better part of the movie. Maybe, possibly, he was slipped some ecstasy (like Alan thought he was slipping everyone) and went tripping at a Siegfried and Roy show. Who freakin' knows. The point is, there were many possible, better explanations to what happened but they decided to go the easy way out.

Another thing that got me about this movie (and it's not really the movie's fault, but more of a growing trend in Hollywood): Why start a movie two days into the story and then go backwards and say, "Two days earlier..." Again, more lazy screenwriting. When I was taking one of my multiple writing classes in college, one of my professors explained that in the first ten minutes of a movie (or ten pages) that you need to grab the audience's attention. Look at a movie like "Drag Me to Hell". The movie starts with a kid getting taken to Hell. That's the way you start a movie.

Think of your favorite movie. Quickly do it. I'll wait.

...

Okay, got it? Now, think of how it's constructed as a story. I'll take one of my favorite movies: "As Good As It Gets". Think of that movie starting around the time he's at the dinner table with Helen Hunt and he goes, "I got something to tell you..." And then Helen Hunt's face goes soft, she smiles slightly and the picture fades to black. Suddenly, a title card comes up saying, "Two days earlier..."

Essentially, this process screws with whatever tension is in the movie because you know that the characters make it to that point. So anytime in "The Hangover" that Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms or Zack Galifin...Galifinak...the guy that plays Alan are in any sort of danger up to that point, you think to yourself, "Oh, they're fine. They got to the part where Bradley Cooper calls the girl." It completely screws up the flow of the plot. It's cheap and annoying.

And finally, Ken Jeong sucks. Seriously, he's terrible. I don't know why anyone ever gave him the chance to be in anything but "Knocked Up". On the special features for "The Hangover", there is a specific special feature that is titled "The Madness of Ken Jeong". It's about seven minutes of him improving and, for reasons unknown to me, people think he's funny. He was funny in "Knocked Up", but I think that too many people told him he was funny before he actually started to try, therefore being over the top and not funny in 90% of everything he's in.

This past fall, I was really excited about the new TV show "Community". I've always been a huge fan of Joel McHale and it's nice to see that he's getting work. As soon as I saw that Ken Jeong was gonna be in it, I immediately became sad. The man really has no talent whatsoever and has been running on fumes for a while. Most of his jokes in the "hilarious improvisation" has to do with dicks, semen and ejaculation. And if that weren't unfunny enough, he does it in a really high pitched Chinese accent. He is not funny and I hope soon he either becomes a better actor or just stops acting.

I'm not picky, but it just has to be one of those two choices. Anything he's in, he ruins.

Despite all the shit that I just spewed, I really did like "The Hangover" but it's still not nearly as good as "The 40 Year Old Virgin". That is the comedy classic to hold all other comedies to in the past decade. "The Hangover" will last amongst fraternities for years to come, but beyond anything else, I don't really see it going much further.

If only I could have taken a roofie to miss the last fifteen minutes of the movie. Then I could have hallucinated a better ending and a movie without Ken Jeong. Ah, yes. What a joy that would have been...

The Dork Knight

This article has been a long time coming, much like "The 'burbs" article I wrote. When "The Dark Knight" came out, a lot of hype surrounded it making it become one of the highest grossing movies of all time. When I saw it, it was in Vermont. Not the best of places to see it, but then again, we were there for a wedding. It was uncomfortable and cramped and packed. And I'm not talking about the theatre.

Let's start with this. Much like the last post that I have, I do believe this is a good movie, but this is by no means a "modern classic" or even one of the best of the decade. A lot of people think this because of how evil the Joker was and how it dealt with the complications of being a hero. Yeah, so what. Honestly, this is the type of movie that holds up to zero scrutiny. The whole movie is a magic act.

You don't really realize it until after you watch it three or four times. The first time you see it, you have this charge. Like, "Holy shit, Batman is awesome." Then the second time you watch it, it becomes a little odd. Like, "How did the Joker coordinate all this?" Then everything falls apart.

The movie is strung together by this half-assed logic. The Joker is a force to be reckoned with because of how he wants everything to turn into chaos. But, he's not omnipresent. He somehow is able to make thousands upon thousands of barrels of gasoline appear where he wants them to at will. The Joker is not that resourceful. For a person that believes in chaos, he must be able to plan things extremely well. The fundamental ideas of the Joker as a character are immediately contradictory. He believes in chaos so much that he doesn't allow it to happen. He has these elaborate plans and schemes but never improvises which is exactly why he loses.

There is too much going on in the movie. People complained about how "Spider-Man 3" had too much going on in it and then just a little over a year later, this movie comes out, does basically the same thing in a darker way and everyone loves it. Granted, "Spider-Man 3" is not a classic either, but no one claimed it to be one like everyone is this. "The Dark Knight" got all this acclaim for paying homage to "Heat" and other movies like it, but that's it's problem. The fact that it didn't play homage to Batman. It was too busy trying to be something it couldn't be.

"Let's do a realistic comic book movie that reminds people more of an R-rated movie from thirteen years ago instead of making it about the characters."

And Christian Bale. Holy shit. What happened to you, buddy? You're such a good actor and then all the sudden, you gotta scream like you have a frog in your throat? What does that accomplish? Bruce Wayne is trying to obscure his voice, but does he have to sound like a moron when he does it? Whether that be his acting choice or Christopher Nolan's directing choice, it still sucks.

Because there is so much going on in the movie, there are a lot of loose ends. Like, how the hell do Alfred and Bruce reconstruct the bullet before Gordon gets killed? What happens to the Chinese businessman when he's on top of the pile of money before they burn it? I'm assuming he gets burned, by why not show it? Because it's a PG-13 movie. Okay, that makes sense, but they make no mention of it and it's just stupid.

Oh and what the hell about when the Joker is talking to Harvey Dent about Rachel in the hospital does Dent not realize it's the Joker until he takes off his face mask that only covers the bottom half of his face?

This is why "The Dark Knight" is not as good as the hype that it brought along. Too many things don't add up. Too many loose ends are not tied up. You might say, "Well, that's how life is." Or, "The Joker is chaotic and so is the movie." Well, I say, "You're stupid." No one should or could really say with a straight face that this movie is one of the best of the past decade. No way. The movie might be okay in the long run, but it's just a lot of action sequences strung together with half-assed character development.

You ever been to a really shitty magician or had one around you and the only thing they can really do it the illusion of losing the top half of his thumb? That is what this movie is like. The only thing Nolan can really do is use IMAX cameras and do a lot of really good action scenes that he stole from another, older, better movie and make you think you're seeing a good movie. This is not the case.

Not only that, but where is the consistency in style between this movie and "Batman Begins"? Oh, that's right, there is none. "Batman Begins" was this dark, nightmarish vision of Gotham City. "The Dark Knight" looks like Chicago. At least in the Spider-Man movies, the city looked the same in all three.

What it comes down to is this, "The Dark Knight" is a good movie. It's the type of movie to show people on your new TV with surround sound, but it's only one step ahead of "Transformers". It looks really good, the directing is okay.

Oh.

Shit.

Forgot.

What the hell is it with over editing the movie? When Batman jumps out of the window to save Rachel from falling to her death, it cuts between three or four different shots for no reason. Why not just show someone fall in one shot or just two? Maybe that would actually feel like a legitimate fall from high up as opposed to just feeling like, no matter what, Batman will prevail.

Oh yeah, Maggie Gyllenhaal was brought on for what? To get killed? It makes no sense. I understand that Katie Holmes wanted more money to be Rachel in this one, but it makes no sense. If you're gonna kill off the character, just bring her in to have some consistency between the roles. But, here I am asking consistency from the guy that offered two versions of Gotham City in two different movies.

The point is, valid moviegoers and watchers will be able to tell the difference between hype and reality. I know I'm not the only one out there that doesn't worship the feet that Nolan walks on. He's a man with talent, but, like J.J. Abrams, it's now his job to prove to us that he's worth the hype. With "The Dark Knight" he has not done so. Let's just hope "Inception" is not just more hype packaged nicely.

Another thing, Heath Ledger does do a fine job as The Joker, but his version of The Joker, as well as Nolan's version of Batman, would not exist if it weren't for Frank Miller and Tim Burton. In order to appreciate what's in front of you, you need to realize where it's come from. And sometimes, as is with "The Dark Knight"'s case, it shows you that the movie is not that good.

The Wrath of J.J. Abrams

Okay, so it's time to get some things straight. Being that it's close to the end of the year and many top 10 lists are about to come out, a movie that I suspect will be on some of them is the remake/reboot/whatever you want to call it of "Star Trek". Now, I've always been a "Star Trek" fan, not to the point of being a full blown Trekkie however. There are certain things about this movie that are good (very good, in fact) and then there are some things that are downright stupid that are in it. We'll start with the good.

The movie has a lot going for it. A great cast, great special effects and a good script. What's hard to realize about this movie is why J.J. Abrams decided to ruin half the shots in the movie by giving them lens flare. For those of you who do not know what this is, just watch the movie. It doesn't take long to realize how much of it is in there. (Okay, so I didn't spend too much time on the good stuff about the movie.) What boggles my mind is that has such a good story going for it decides to annoy the shit out of people by how it's shot.

I know that I might be sounding a little bit like my friend Allen here with talking about shots and composition and stuff like that, but you'll have to agree. When watching the movie, it's as if Abrams was watching the movie and thought to himself, "This doesn't look futuristic enough. You know what makes things look more futuristic? Lens flare! Holy shit, I'm the genius everyone says I am."

Don't get me wrong, I like J.J. Abrams, but I think his is a case of too much too fast. And this isn't really his fault. "Star Trek", while very good, suffered a great deal from his directorial choices. The pacing is top notch and the acting is great, but everything is obscured by this dumbass flare every two seconds. From what I've heard, he employed specific lighting devices in order to get the effect of the flares. Most of the time in film, lens flares happen naturally which makes it that much cooler. Although Spielberg is known for them, the one that comes to mind immediately is when Hans Gruber is checking the detonators on the roof in "Die Hard". There's even a musical cue that goes along with it.

(After four minutes of looking for a video on YouTube for the example...)

There goes that idea. Anyway, the point is, the lens flare in "Star Trek" is distracting from the story. You're watching Spock grieve for his mother and then all the sudden, from fucking nowhere, a lens flare flashes across his face. What does that do? What does it artistically accomplish? Answer: nothing. Or wait until Spock and Kirk begin to fight (well, when Spock starts kicking Kirk's ass) on the bridge. When this happens, Spock grabs Kirk by the neck, taking all of his rage out on Kirk after losing his mother. You see the intensity on his face...

Wait a second...

No, you don't. You see lens flare. You see too much of it. This choice screws up whatever emotion Zachary Quinto was trying for. You see it, but you can't see the details, the sense of loss and anger. You are not able to see it nearly as well as you should considering what's happened to Spock. It cheapens the moment.

If you were to go back three years and remember the summer of 2006, some of you may remember going to see "Mission: Impossible III", also directed by Abrams. This was a good example of a great summer blockbuster. The movie suffered a lot of backlash because of all the Tom Cruise bullshit that was going on at the time. The funny thing about Tom Cruise is that I still like him. (I dare any of you to come up with a legitimately bad Tom Cruise movie that has come out after "Rain Man". I dare you.) If you want to see J.J. Abrams doing a good job directing, watch that movie. "Star Trek", well, you can still see it for the acting, special effects and story. Just don't go see it and act like it's some sort of masterpiece of cinema. It really is quite annoying.

Another thing about J.J. Abrams: He was in Entertainment Weekly's Entertainers of the Decade. And a lot of the things that were talked about in there was his TV work which is substantial. He worked on "Felicity", "Alias" and, of course, "Lost". I never watched "Felicity" except for Keri Russell, but I did watch "Alias" and do watch "Lost". The thing to realize though is that I doubt Abrams was that much involved with the development of "Lost".

The simple fact remains is that Abrams has only had two writing credits on that show should show anyone that it's not him that's the cultural genius that everyone thinks he is. "Lost" is not his show. They show him as a creator, but let me tell you something. For those of you who don't know by now, I write pretty extensively. Screenplays, plays, short stories, novels and reviews like this one. I've come up with a couple of ideas here and there with other people and while they are not actively involved with the process of getting it down on paper, legally, if I were to sell the screenplay, I'd be obligated to put them on paper as to getting credit for it. Abrams is nothing but a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

And I swear to God, on this webpage right now, that if he ruins the end of "Lost" like he fucked up the series finale of "Alias", I might just kill him. Let's just hope the series creators work on the finale and not him. He can direct the series finale. Just make sure there's not a budget for unnecessary lighting.

Oh yeah too Entertainment Weekly, he's not the next Spielberg. If you go back to when Spielberg was first getting started, he did this thing. It's a weird thing for people to have a grasp on at this point in culture, but it's this little thing known as being original. I know, it's a fancy concept with an even fancier name, but for Christ's sake, Spielberg at least took original concepts and put them out for people to look at. I know what you're gonna say: "Jaws" was a book before it was a movie." Good one, fuck nuts. No shit. Think about the stuff afterwards that he did. "Close Encounters", "1941", "E.T."

Now, look at J.J. Abrams. He's done some TV (where none of us are quite sure how much involvement he's had in them) and he's directed two movies. One was the third in a series of a remake of a show. The other was the eleventh in a series of a remake of a show. Think about that. Abrams also wrote the Harrison Ford drama "Regarding Henry", "Forever Young", "Gone Fishin'" and "Armageddon", along with "Joy Ride". So before we put the cart before the horse too much, let's realize what we're working with.

We're not working with the next Spielberg. They said the same thing about M. Night Shymalan and look what happened with him. He went from doing "The Sixth Sense" to doing "Lady in the Water". But at least Shymalan has a crisp look to all of his movies. Abrams is still thinking in the TV mindset because that's all he's directed so far aside from the two movies. "Star Trek" was the perfect opportunity to expand his horizons, but instead, he just depended on lens flare to get him along.

Let's just hope that when he does do a sequel that he learned his lesson and has matured a bit more as a filmmaker by then, rather than resting on his laurels.

Taking Out the Garbage

"Silent Night, Deadly Night Part II" lives up to every expectation you could imagine. When you think about it, you're really watching two movies in one. For those of you who do not know the plot (if you can even legitimately consider this movie as having one), Ricky is the brother of Billy, the Santa killer from the previous film. He is in a mental institution and not doing too well there. He doesn't like his psychiatrist and constantly undermines him while relaying his story.

Something to take into account is a lot of this movie is told in flashback. I'd say at least fifty to sixty percent. The flashbacks are mostly from the original movie. And while the original movie has it's own merits, it is pretty much worth it to just watch the sequel. The flashbacks eventually become things they filmed for this movie. Ricky gets a girlfriend and ends up going crazy for almost no reason.

The problem with movies like these is that the killers have almost no motivation whatsoever. We're supposed to assume that because he was a baby when he saw his father killed and his mother raped and then killed that this would cause him to grow up as a serial killer himself. I mean, granted, there's a part in the original, and subsequently the sequel, where Ricky as a kid thinks he's seeing his brother walk towards him. Ricky holds out his hands, trying to embrace his brother. Right then, the sheriff shows up and shoots the man in the Santa suit in the back. Turns out that the Santa the cop shot was not the Santa killer that was on the loose. It was the kindly, drunkard Santa that just got lost in the mix.

But that Santa was killed right in front of the child.

Now, I know, I don't know a ton about psychology and that kind of things. Different circumstances cause different symptoms and so on. But I don't imagine that a kid that was so inundated with violence would eventually want to dress up in his own Santa suit and go around, killing people. Another thing, if he saw Santa get shot by a cop, don't you think that he might not want to be like Santa? As a child, he could have drawn the conclusion that if you dress like Santa, you could be shot. Just a thought...

The thing is, I'm thinking way too much into all of this. I usually do, it's one of my weaknesses. Problems with this movie aside, it's really something to see for yourself. Me describing it won't come close to doing it justice at all, but Ricky ends up going on a rampage like nothing you've seen before. Just a lot of indiscriminate shooting at the expense of innocent bystanders. It's a really impressive couple of minutes in the movie. Those five or so minutes end up making up for the fact that the rest of the movie really wasn't all that good. You just keep harkening back to those ten minutes, realizing that he killed about seven people in that time. You don't get that kind of stuff in horror movies anymore.

That's another thing. This is really not a horror movie. I mean, sure, there's killings and gore and some guy gets a car battery hooked up to his wisdom teeth, ripe with the classic 80s electricity. But there is no suspense. You know from the get go that Ricky is gonna go nuts and kill a lot of people. You just don't really realize the extent of his killing.

I'd like to analyze that scene. I know I said that I wouldn't because I wouldn't be able to do it justice, but there's just something about it. A strange kind of allure. That being said, I'm gonna go against my word, logic be damned.

The scene begins with Ricky walking around with his girlfriend. His girlfriend is about three to six times hotter than any other blonde girl in a bad horror movie in the 80s. Ricky loves her, talking about different things when they encounter her ex-boyfriend named Chip. Chip follows the stereotype of every bad young adult being blonde. And I think this actor may have been pretty desperate because his hair looks as though it was bleached. I could just see this guy, begging to be in the movie and saying, "Look, I know my hair is brown, but please, let me be in the movie. I'll bleach it. I swear, I will. This movie is gonna be the next "Halloween", just please let me be in this movie."

So, as they happen upon the ex-boyfriend, he turns immediately with his eyebrows. I tend to believe that the director is a firm believer in the strength of the performances through eyebrows and laughing. Ricky and Chip get into an argument which leads to Ricky killing Chip by way of car battery. Impressive intuition for a guy that wears skin tight shirts. His girlfriend then gets upset with Ricky. Not scared, mind you. Upset.

And we're talking upset as if he left his dishes out from the previous night. Ricky just fucking KILLED her ex-boyfriend and while the boyfriend was an obvious prick, I don't see her just being like, "I hate you, Ricky!" Ricky's mind then goes on auto pilot. At least I assume that's what all of Ricky's erratic eyebrow movement meant. He suddenly says, "Punish!" and that's the end of his girlfriend. He takes the antenna off Chip's car and strangles his girlfriend to death with it. Ricky's eyes go cross (I don't think that was a deliberate choice.) and his girlfriend falls to the ground.

Just as this happens, a cop shows up out of the blue. The cop has his hat cocked to the side for no reason. I think possibly it was to show that the cop thought he was a tough guy. Judging by his dialogue, I'd assume that was what they were going for. He doesn't last too long because he holds the gun two inches from Ricky's head before Ricky grabs the barrel of the gun and points it to the cop's head. The cop instinctually pulls the trigger. Because, you know, anytime a killer grabs the barrel of my gun and points it at my forehead, I always just shoot. It's only natural.

Now Ricky has a gun and everyone is screwed.

He takes a few steps, laughing at the gun in his hand. I don't think he thought the gun was funny, I just think it was supposed to be him with an evil laugh. But he looks at the gun, laughs, looks at the gun, laughs. This goes on for about thirty seconds before he starts walking. The music then goes to the left side of the piano. Deep, dark piano music is played as Ricky begins his rampage.

A neighbor walks out of his house, yelling, "What the hell is going on out there?" Ricky turns, shoots and kills the guy. Couple of things wrong with this situation. Who, after hearing a gun go off, walks out of their house without looking out the window and yells at the top of their lungs in order to draw attention to themselves? I know, the easy answer is "That guy". But, realistically, who? If I heard a gunshot, I'd look out my window. After seeing the guy with the gun in his hand, laughing at it, I'd be like, "I'm staying the hell inside and taking cover." Another thing, the guy is about one hundred yards away. It'd be extremely difficult to pull this shot off even if he were a crack shot which I have my doubts of because later in the sequence, it takes him three shots to shoot the front of a car. Figure that one out.

As he keeps walking, he continues to laugh. Don't really know why. I guess this guy is just THAT evil. He then comes upon a guy taking out his trash. Which, being that the other guy was in his house when he heard the shot, you'd think this guy taking his garbage out would have heard it being that he was outside the entire time. But no, he doesn't even realize the guy in the blue sweater with the gun in his hand, laughing hysterically at nothing, is standing right there.

As the man picks up his garbage can, Ricky looks at him all wild-eyed and screams, "Garbage day!" This makes absolutely no sense, but that's fine. It's one of the great B-movie moments. You can't just watch that one part, you gotta watch the entire movie to appreciate it. It just comes out of nowhere and catches you off guard. It's great.

He continues to walk and laugh, sees a girl on a bike, doesn't kill her, shoots a car, the car blows up and he catches up with the cops. The cops all have their guns trained on him. Ricky sees his way out, laughing again, pointing the gun to his temple. He has no more bullets. Can't kill himself this time. Too bad too.

There are many excellent parts in this movie but you have to wade through the shit to get to it. To sum up the movie, there is one scene early in the movie when Ricky and his girlfriend are at a movie. There is an annoying movie patron that calls Ricky a "faggot" for not kissing his girlfriend. The girlfriend laughs, saying, "Well, we know that's not true." Ricky takes it in, thinking, "You know, she is right."

After that, this exchange happens:

Ricky: "What did you say this movie was about?"

Girlfriend: "Oh, it's great! It's about this guy that dresses up like Santa Claus and kills people."

Ricky: "What?!"

And the movie they're showing clips from is the original "Silent Night, Deadly Night". This is the type of movie that you watch late at night with some friends. You can be drunk if you want to, but you might miss out on some of the truly stupidly entertaining parts.

Just remember girls, if you're going to go out with a guy, just make sure you don't go to a movie that specifically chronicles his childhood fears, anxieties and tragedies. It's counterintuitive to a successful date.

Note: Eric Freeman was chosen because he was a better look for the killer as opposed to the better actor as admitted by the director. It shows, but when you think about it, Ricky has not become iconic because he was a well-written character. It was all because of Eric Freeman. Freeman throws himself into the role even though he doesn't really know what he's doing. That takes a special kind of risk and I believe it paid off. Freeman makes the movie worth watching, even if his acting is horrible.

Another note: The movie was originally supposed to be a re-edited version of the original which explains all the original footage. I guess the director thought there was still some more story to be told in the Santa killer genre. Realize too that after this movie, there were three other sequels. The third directed by Monte Hellman ("Two Lane Blacktop"), the fourth starring Clint Howard and the fifth starring Mickey Rooney, who, ironically, denounced the original as being perverted. Guess money changes things, what little money he could have made from the fourth sequel to a bad horror movie.

Everyone Knew It Was Coming, It Was Just a Question of When

I don't think there is any proper way to describe the impact that "The 'burbs" has had on me. As ridiculous as I'm sure it sounds, it's true. This is one of the movies of my childhood that I rediscovered as an adult and it is also one of the most underrated movies of all time. I get laughed at a lot when I talk about this movie, but there are many reasons that this movie is great. While it may not go down in history as one of the best films ever made, it is certainly one of the most entertaining.

When I was a kid, I didn't have a ton of friends. This isn't the time for me to call a pity party into order for myself, I only say this to set up the rest of the story. My best friend as a kid (and it has carried over into adulthood) was George. George lived across the street from me. We were basically inseparable. To this day, we have only had one argument and I think it was over a toy of mine that I wouldn't let him borrow back in third grade.

One of the traditions that we kept in place every summer before school started was watching "The 'burbs". But it wasn't just the watching, it was having to go get it. Up until a few years ago, there was a video rental place only two blocks from where I lived. The late and great Red's Video. There was something about that place that was indescribable. There was an atmosphere about it. Above the place were apartments and I'm pretty sure they had a leak from one of the toilets because it always smelled like soap scum.

This was where I got part of my education with movies. I didn't know a lot about the movies, but there was something fascinating about going to a store and looking at the backs of all these different VHS tapes. Didn't matter how good or bad the movie was, it was just a great feeling to be looking at the backs of these movies. It was probably because I was still in my stages of discovery. Now I look at the backs of movies and expect to see what I see. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when I would first go into that store, it was like a kid in a candy shop. And I was a fat kid so candy was quite important to me.

I'm not exactly sure what it was that drew us to "The 'burbs" at first. Now that I think of it, it's possible that we rented it because there was this other video store that didn't last too long that was below another more popular store in Midtown Plaza in Oswego. In this store was a cardboard cutout of Tom Hanks, standing with garden hose in tow. It was large and it left an impression.

The thing about "The 'burbs", aside from the obvious nostalgia, is that it, at it's very core, is a summer movie. It delves into gossip in a way I haven't really seen in a movie. It perfectly captures the paranoia and thoughts of this tight knit group of neighbors who share property lines in a cul de sac. I've heard exchanges like these mainly because I live in Oswego, NY.

For those of you who are not from Oswego or who are unfamiliar with it, Oswego just happens to be about the worst town for gossip. This place is really too big to be called a town and too small to be called a city. We're like this city with a chip on it's shoulder. We want to maintain our small town goodness but we want to act like this big, bad wolf of a city. It makes no sense. I pooled a lot of gossip as a child because my father was a cop.

There are a lot of things that get said about policemen. Some of them are true, some of them not so much. I know for a fact that in Oswego currently we have a lot of younger cops that seem to be trying to make a name for themselves over actually protecting and serving. When my father was a cop, he was cut from a different cloth. And no, I'm not just saying that because he was my dad. I say that because it's the truth.

Wow, nice tangent Adam.

The point being there was a ton of gossip in Oswego. Real neighbors talk like the characters in "The 'burbs". Granted, the people in the movie end up being right so it may be a comment on gossip sometimes being true. I'm not sure what movie it is (I think it may be "Enemy of the State") but a character says that being paranoid is beneficial because you only have to be right once for it all to be worth it. Or something like that. I mean, if I can't remember what movie it's from, you can't expect a completely accurate quote.

For those of you who don't know the story of "The 'burbs", it goes something like this: Ray Peterson (Tom Hanks) has taken a week off work to relax. His wife Carol (Carrie Fisher) keeps telling him that he should be doing some kind of work because otherwise he'll just drive himself insane doing nothing. Quickly, their breakfast is disrupted by their next door neighbor Art (Rick Ducommun) using a rifle to shoot crows. After almost killing Ray, he comes in for breakfast, eating more than the entire family combined. Once inside, the rumors start.

Without getting too much farther into the plot, let's just say things get out of hand because of how everyone thinks the Klopeks are closet murderers. People go missing, go into other people's houses, fall off roofs and get blown up. And you'd think a movie like this would be a horror movie. If you didn't know that Tom Hanks was in it and it was still in the era he still made comedies, you'd probably think that this was a horror movie. Most younger folks out there probably still do think it's a horror movie because Tom Hanks is known for his dramas.

But the thing is, this is not a horror movie. It has horror elements, but it's pretty much just a comedy. There is a lot of slapstick. There are a lot of black comedies that fail to be able to dance the line between the two genres. This is the perfect example of a black comedy. I mean, a lot of people might mention "Man Bites Dog" or possibly "Drag Me to Hell", but "Man Bites Dog" is extremely disturbing and "Drag Me to Hell" is more a horror with comedic elements. For my money, there is not a better black comedy out there.

The other thing to mention about the movie is the performances. All the actors are at the top of their game. I really don't understand how Rick Ducommun didn't have more of a career after this movie. All the performances make you feel at home. Make you feel like you're having old friends over for breakfast. There isn't a hell of a lot of nuance to the performances, but then again, it's not really necessary.

Another stand out is Bruce Dern. Bruce Dern epitomizes "gun nut". His character, Mark Rumsfeld a former military man, is introduced into most scenes with echoes of the "Patton" theme. All this talk of a murder in his neighborhood gives him a charge. I really am starting to believe that Rainn Wilson based parts of Dwight from "The Office" on Rumsfeld. His relationship with his next door neighbor Ricky (Corey Feldman) is a strained one. The neighborhood is almost like a family. They fight and yell, but at the end of the day, they need someone to help them pick them up off the ground and help them solve a murder.

Joe Dante ("Gremlins", "Gremlins 2-The New Batch", "Small Soldiers") has always been able to deftly juggle horror and comedy. This is just him at the peak of his powers. A lot of people take cues from the second "Gremlins" movie which, while a great movie on it's own, cannot really hold a candle to "The 'burbs". Dante has always been one of my favorite directors. He's sorta like a more subdued Sam Raimi. He makes very good popcorn movies and I know that somewhere down the line, he'll find his way into an Oscar.

Another thing that should be mentioned is the score. I know I'm kind of a freak when it comes to movie scores. Most people haven't seen the movies I own the soundtracks to. The thing is, I've always been this way. My father would tell me that when my brother was a child that he and my father would march around the house, listening to the "Patton" soundtrack on record. See? Being a dork runs in my family. I must have gotten it from my dad. And something that should come as no surprise is that I am a fan of Jerry Goldsmith.

Jerry Goldsmith started his work on TV. He created iconic themes to many movies and TV shows. More so than Hans Zimmer. (That's right, Mike. You heard me.) The one thing about Goldsmith that seems a bit strange is the fact that once the 80s hit, he pretty much did anything that came his way. Mike would say this was Goldsmith going for a paycheck. But I don't think that's what it was. I think a man of as much talent as Goldsmith was looking for ways that he could constantly try challenging himself. I think him doing movies like "Leviathan" and "Supergirl" were mostly because he wanted to keep working. If you look at the list of movies he did, it's a very impressive body of work.

And with Goldsmith, if the movie he scored is terrible, it's likely to be elevated by his score. This can be seen evidently in "Hollow Man" and the remake of "The Haunting". His musical work is so recognizable (for me anyway) that you don't really have to get too many notes in before you realize it's him. A lot of people may consider this to be somewhat derivative, but John Williams is the same way. I rank Goldsmith right up there with Williams. He's in a class of his own.

The score to this film is, in short, amazing. What he throws into this movie is genius. You hear everything from serious horror music to just goofy music. I'm pretty sure that it's either a shoe squeaking or the Flipper sound when the neighbors are sneaking around, trying to figure out what's going on across the street. Oh yeah, and a shot of a dog running is scored with a dog barking in beat with the music. Pretty amazing stuff. If you don't believe me, try downloading it. The soundtrack is about as rare as they get so it's fairly expensive. But if you're a fan of movie scores, it's definitely worth it.

That being said, the movie is amazing. Anyone that hasn't seen it really should take the time out of their schedule to find it. It's not hard to find. I know there is a three pack of that, "The Money Pit" and something else. While "The Money Pit" kinda sucks, you'll be paying for "The 'burbs" which I'm convinced will go down as a modern cult classic.

Another quick thing: the movie will always make you feel like it's summer time. I would have thought the movie would have been released in the summer, but it was released in February of 1989. While watching it, you almost feel the heat. That's how good the movie is.