Religulous

Released: 2008

MPAA rating: R

Run time: 1:41

Before getting into the film itself, I should probably take a second to go through my preconceptions on the subject matter and the man who made the film. First, religion. I was raised Catholic and have raised (am raising) my children Catholic. At the same time, though, I am far from a devout follower. While I sort of believe in "something", I don't really think any organized religion has it right (and never will). See, the problem is, and this is one of the major points in the film, people will always get in the way. Regardless of your views on religion, it has definitely been molded heavily by what its leaders want you to believe. Even the "Holy Books" are written and, more importantly, edited, by men. So, I am a "believer" in something and nothing all at the same time. Now, Bill Maher. For reasons I can not comprehend, I actually am somewhat of a fan. I disagree with him on most subjects, find him smarmy and condescending, but, he is funny and for a comedian, that is the important part. So, the movie? If you are a devout follower of any religion, you will be offended. While this is not for you, it sort of deserves a watch because a lot of really excellent material is covered, through the filter of Maher's "smarter than you" attitude. Pretty much every religion gets put under the microscope at some point in the film and probably the most surprising thing you find is they really are all the same. They offer the same things, most seem to have emerged at the same time in history and most are derived from some religion that came before it. This is the stuff I found fascinating. Maher travels the globe talking to different people about their beliefs and challenges them to really think about the things they believe. As a comedian, there are some very funny sequences while also being somewhat enlightening. The thing about documentaries, though, is that they are usually very biased. Every year, you see a documentarian declare when they have won their Oscar how they "deal in truth". Well, nothing can be further from it, since the documentaries I watch all tend to come off as propaganda pieces for the people that set out to make them. This is no different as Maher clearly sets out to mock and tear down religion and actually succeeds in doing so, but the underlying motivation should always be understood. The ending tends to be a little heavy-handed as he explores the varying religions' theories of the "end times". The point he is making is that the "end times" may come about not because of any prophecy, but because of those people who are hell-bent on fulfilling it. Heavy-handed as it was, it really is an excellent point. So, while I have a love-hate relationship with Maher and a sort of dysfunctional relationship with religion, I found this to be an entertaining and even thought-provoking film.

Grade: B

Trailer:

The Last House on the Left

Released: 1972

MPAA rating: Unrated

Run time: 1:24

I don't usually review movies that are 37 years old. It sort of seems pointless since, at this point, any one interested will have seen it already. However, this movie's sort of revered cult status made me feel compelled to give it a review. Call this a "Gallagher Classic Review", if you will. Perhaps a new addition to the column. The only problem here is that this movie is far from classic. It is actually a movie I avoided due to its "brutal" reputation. Some of what gives this movie its cult classic status is that it is horror maven Wes Craven's first film and, also, it IS very different. It is shockingly low budget, which actually adds to the discomfort level while watching it. The acting is incredibly bad, led by the mother (Cynthia Carr) and the two "Keystone Cops" from the sherriff's office (Marshall Anker and Martin Kove --who you may remember from "The Karate Kid"). In fact, the two cops were completely unnecessary and wasted characters. They were there to provide some comic relief, but it just didn't do it for me. It just seemed like wasted time. If you are not familiar with the movie, the plot involves two teenage girls (Sandra Peabody and Lucy Grantham) who head into the city for a concert. When they decide to score some pot, they find themselves captured and tormented by a group of escaped convicts. The convicts are incredibly over-the-top evil (but not nearly as effectively as the Firefly family in "The Devil's Rejects"). You have the ringleader, Krug (David Hess), his son Junior (Marc Sheffler), Weasel (Fred J. Lincoln) and Sadie (Jeramie Rain). Their resumes are so silly, it is almost comical. Krug forced his own son to become addicted to heroin so he "could control him for life". Sadie is described as a woman who seems more like a wild animal than a human and Weasel is a "child molester also convicted of assault with a deadly weapon". We hear this as we see Weasel spin the chamber on a revolver. These crimes don't usually reside in the same person. So, you have the two girls being tormented through the night and coincidence finds the group in the woods eerily close to one of the girl's homes. When fate puts the four convicts in the home of the girl, the parents decide to turn the tables and exact their revenge. This is the part that I was looking forward to: A twist on the psycho genre where the "good people" become the torturers for revenge. Unfortunately, it takes way too long to get to this, the revenge methods become silly and it is over too fast. Did ANYTHING about this movie work? Well, some of it did. There are a couple of rape/"forced performance" scenes that are incredibly uncomfortable and definitely disturbing. The blood, for a low budget 1972 horror film, is very realistic (in fact, in Germany, it was "sold" as a rumored snuff film where real murders were filmed). Overall, though, too much silliness was mixed in and the writing was not quite good enough to overcome the very bad production values. In a very rare case, I am actually looking forward to seeing the recent remake to see if they got this right. Wes Craven is a legend and I love several of his films. This was not one of them.

Grade: D+

Trailer:

Some of Tarantino's Best

In honor of the release of "Inglourious Basterds", I thought I would post some of the greatest scenes from Tarantino films. This is not a "Best" list, just a random assortment of some great scenes. Of course, there are SO many more, so this is just a taste.

Race to Witch Mountain (PG)

Released: 2009

MPAA rating: PG

Run time: 1:38

I certainly didn't go into this expecting Shakespeare or Scorcese. I figured on a moderately entertaining family adventure with Dwayne Johnson (and, come on, who doesn't love "The Rock"). I could not have been more disappointed. Several Facebook friends have already disagreed, so maybe I just missed something. If it helps my case, my 9-year old daughter got bored as well. After a brief sequence setting up Johnson's character (Jack Bruno, a cab driver who used to drive for the mob), it moves right into the adventure. Two kids (AnnaSophia Robb and Alexander Ludwig) appear in his cab and offer him lots of cash for a ride. Against his better judgement, he accepts, finding himself transporting two aliens while being chased by the US Government and his former mob associates. The first half hour contains a ton of action with little to no set up so it becomes a bit too much and with action not grounded in any semblance of a story, it is surprisingly uninteresting. The Feds in pursuit are cookie-cutter characters you have seen in a thousand movies before this one. When they finally settle down a bit to catch you up on what is going on, you find you no longer even care. While Johnson is OK in basically a run-of-the-mill role for him, much of the remaining cast is just bad. Carla Gugino, as a scientist studying the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, is surprisingly bad, as she usually puts up good performances. I guess they just could not rise above the material. The plot is totally ripped off from "E.T." and a character ripped right out of "The Terminator" is thrown in for good measure. As I mentioned earlier, several people disagreed with me, but I just did not enjoy this at all.

Grade: D+

Trailer:

Hannah Montana: The Movie

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: G
Run time: 1:42

This is one of those movies where any review, this humble writer included, is basically a waste of space. Its audience is its audience and they will see it no matter what any one says. Those who are not interested never will be. In any event, I'll take a shot. For those of you without tween girls, "Hannah Montana" is the alter-ego of Miley Stewart (Miley Cyrus), regular girl by day, pop star by night (aka "The Best of Both Worlds"). That is the basic premise of the TV show on which this movie is based. In the movie, Miley is leaning a little too heavy in the direction of "Hannah", losing her regular girl roots. Her dad (real-life dad Billy Ray Cyrus) decides it is time for her to disappear from the public eye for a while and brings her back to her hometown of Crowley Corners, Tennessee. Once there, she finds a town on the verge of losing a large plot of land to a developer who will build a mega-mall, destroying their small town feel. Of course, she also finds herself falling for ranch hand Travis Brody (Lucas Till). As she reconnects with her roots, she finds she needs to decide who she wants to be: Hannah Montana or Miley Stewart. The movie obviously has much better production value than the TV series and certainly a more serious storyline. They do find plenty of opportunity to mix in some of the slapstick comedy style from the show. Although the shows characters are represented, many of them are sort of done away with quickly. I was not all that crazy about the introduction of a publicist (Vanessa Williams), who has "Hannah" moving at a breakneck pace. On the show, you always get the impression that her dad takes care of all that. I guess they needed a protagonist to get her to need to get away from it all. Lots of music is sprinkled in and some of it is not that bad, especially "The Climb", which is a really good song, but is now becoming badly overplayed by radio. The fans will love this movie and the parents will not find themselves wanting to scream, so I guess that is high praise.

Grade: C

Trailer:

I Love You, Man

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: R
Run time: 1:45

Everywhere you turn, there is another romantic comedy hitting theaters. "I Love You, Man" introduces the concept of the "bro-mantic" comedy. Paul Rudd stars as Peter Klaven, a man on the verge of marriage who realizes he does not have any male friends that are close enough to actually ask to be his best man. So, he decides to get out there and try to start meeting men and doing manly things. He finds this process scarily similar to dating. So much so that, sometimes, the guys he meets actually think they ARE dating. Then, he meets Syndey Fife (Jason Segel), a sort of lewd, crude straight-talking guy who is oddly likable. They strike up quite a friendship which actually starts to interfere with his relationship with his fiance (Rashida Jones). I am huge fan of Paul Rudd, so I may be biased, but he is very funny in this movie. Jason Segel is also good and is better than he was in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" (which he was also funny in). The movie has lots of male-bonding gags, along with possibly the funniest puke scene I have ever seen. The supporting cast members are also very good, including Jon Favreau and Jaime Pressley as a couple who is friends with his fiance. Favreau is the first to be charged with helping Rudd become a man and wants no part of the assignment. This is a very funny movie, although not one of the great all-time comedies. I definitely enjoyed it and had a good time watching it.

Grade: B-

Trailer:

Bangkok Dangerous

Released: 2008
MPAA rating: R
Run time: 1:39

I have a slight bias here in that I love hitman movies and I am sort of a Nic Cage fan, so factor that into your reading of this review. "Bangkok Dangerous" gives us the story of Joe (Nicholas Cage), a hitman for hire that works only through reputation: no one who hires him knows he is and he never knows who he is working for. As the movie opens, Joe's narration gives us the golden rules of his business:

I was taught four rules...
One: Don't ask questions. There is no such thing as right and wrong.
Two: Don't take an interest in people outside of work. There is no such thing as trust.
Three: Erase every trace. Come anonymous and leave nothing behind.
Four: Know when to get out. Just thinking about it means it's time. Before you lose your edge, before you become a target.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that all of these rules will come into play before the movie is over. At this point in his career, he has already decided that the four hits in Bangkok will be his last job. When Joe falls for a local girl (Charlie Yeung) and befriends his errand boy, Kong (Shakrit Yamnarm), you can see the "rules" already eluding him. Of course, both of those relationships will be used against him at some point. As he moves through his targets, he finds himself also locked into a cat-and-mouse game with the mobster who hired him. The mobster does not like that he does not know who he hired and is trying to get to know Joe better. From Joe's standpoint, this is a major problem, setting up the climactic conflict of the film. Other than the voice-over narration by Cage, the movie is short on dialogue and lets the action and the tension tell the story. The "hitman at the end of his career" story line is really nothing new or ground-breaking, but I did find it to be an entertaining film. One crtitique is that, for a "cool, best-in-the-business" hitman, some of the hits we see are awfully sloppy and needlessly public. This just did not seem to fit this class of hitman. Also, the narration was very "breathy", almost obscene phone call breathy. Perhaps that's just Nic Cage's voice, but he seemed to be trying for a Clint Eastwood thing. Overall, an OK movie. I enjoyed it, but didn't love it.

Grade: C

Trailer:

The Haunting in Connecticut

Released: 2009
MPAA rating: PG-13
Run time: 1:42

First, I'll address the "Based on True Events" tagline: I don't buy any of it, even for a second. I actually dismissed that before I even dropped the DVD in. I approached this as a complete work of fiction. If I watched this with the "true story" mindset, this would be a very different review. Now, as a work of fiction, "The Haunting in Connecticut" works very well. The Campbell family is struggling with driving their son back and forth to a special hospital for cancer treatments. The mom, Sara Campbell (Virginia Madsen), decides they need to rent a home closer to the hospital because the long drive is just too much for their son. Of course, this poses a major financial hardship as they would now have to pay a mortgage and the rent. When looking for a home, she finds a large, beautiful home that's rent is surprisingly affordable. She decides she must take it, causing some tension between herself and her husband (Martin Donovan), who is already struggling to make ends meet. This first half of the movie which mostly deals with the emotional and financial struggles of dealing with a child with cancer is actually very well done. Unfortunately, having had experience in this area, I found the family's hardships rang very true. The loneliness, the conflict between keeping your job and taking care of your child, the "denial", the temptation to just descend into alcoholism to "get away from it all": It all hit very close to home. Once you get past that framework, you have Matt (Kyle Gallner), the son going through treatment, starts to see strange apparitions, which seem to be easily explained by his chemotherapy drugs. It is at this point that you get a pretty decent ghost story as they begin to find their house has secrets and some wayward spirits that need to be set free. As a work of fiction, I found this to be entertaining as the ghost story element was very suspenseful and creepy. The acting was good and the father's struggles with trying to keep it all together, sometimes unsuccessfully, hit the mark. While Virginia Madsen gets most of the screen time, with Kyle Gallner, Martin Donovan does a great job in his limited appearances. I definitely recommend this for fans of these haunting movies, just don't buy into the true story nonsense.


Grade: B

Trailer:

Thrilla In Manila

Released: 2008 (British TV)
MPAA rating: None
Run time: 1:25


Whether you love boxing, hate boxing or simply don't care, this is a very compelling story of two driven, possibly obsessed, men on a collision course with history. "Thrilla in Manila", the all-time great fight between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, has so much more to it that just a heavyweight fight for the title. This documentary details all of the pre-history and subtext of what many believe to be the greatest fight in boxing history. On the one hand, you have Muhammad Ali, born Cassius Clay and stripped of his license to fight when he refused to be drafted in the Vietnam War on religious grounds. On the other, you have Joe Frazier, who helped Ali out with some money while he was out of boxing and did every thing he could to help Ali get that license back. The tables turn when Ali is allowed to return, Frazier is the heavyweight champ, and Ali shows the brash confidence and fight-promoting genius that makes him "The Greatest". Unfortunately for Frazier, he is the target of Ali's trash-talking, being called an Uncle Tom, despite being raised in the mean streets of the blackest part of Philadelphia. Frazier took it all very personally and, to this day, does not forgive Ali for the things he said. This all builds up to a huge fight in Manila after two previous fights where each came away with a victory. This would be the one to decide who was the greatest of all time. The documentary does a great job capturing all of the drama and subtext of this fight and is a riveting film as it heads toward the fight itself with many of the key figures discussing what they saw and lived. The documentary is very "Frazier-centric" and tells the story mostly from his point of view, so Ali does not come off very well. I don't think any bit of it is inaccurate, but you can certainly tell who the filmmakers thought the "villain" of this story is. I really enjoyed this film and somewhat remember this fight when I was a kid and boxing was still a worldwide event. For a piece of sports, political and, oddly, race history, check it out.


Grade: A

Trailer: