The Final Destination (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 28, 2009

There is a rap song that begins, “Six million ways to die — choose one.” In the “Final Destination” movies, there are about six trillion ways to expire, none of them pleasant.

This horror franchise specializes in portraying elaborate, freak-accident deaths, usually befalling young men and women.

“The Final Destination,” which is supposedly the last installment of the series, continues to wring out its bone-dry, bankrupt gimmick. Though the first film was sufficient, here we are with a fourth rehashing where several friends are once again enjoying themselves, until one of them has a premonition depicting an imminent catastrophe.

“The Final Destination” opens at a race track. The visionary leading character, Nick — who’s played by Wheeling-born actor Bobby Campo — foresees a horrendous car crash that will kill him and his friends. After warning his skeptical cohorts and surrounding spectators, they flee the scene whereupon the crash occurs as he had envisioned, except the majority of those who listened to his warning cheat death.

But only for a time.

In these movies death itself is personified as an invisible stalker, preying upon those who should have died. And just like the three previous films, the characters realize what’s happening and try to prevent their fatalities.

When I discussed Campo’s new film with him, he said, “Our object was to see how gruesome and how intricate we could make these deaths.” While it’s true that “The Final Destination” delivers some chain-reaction executions, it spends more time trying to defy audience expectations than it does creating complicated and ghoulish kill scenarios. (The problem with faking out viewers every time is the deception is no longer a surprise.)

“The Final Destination” does deliver one stroke of genius pertaining to its 3-D format: Typically, the fun of 3-D is the alarming perception that something is flying out of the screen toward your face. This movie cleverly exploits this anxiety with a 3-D movie scene within the 3-D movie you’re watching.

But otherwise, most of the blurry 3-D sequences are difficult for your eyes to bring into focus and look artificial — like cartoonish, transparent holograms.

Campo has a charismatic screen presence, and he does fine with this role of looking worried, making ominous predictions and trying to evade death. He told me, “It’s weird to act in a horror movie, because you can’t exactly draw from anything you’ve ever experienced.”

Let’s hope.

Directed by David R. Ellis

Bobby Campo / Shantel VanSanten / Haley Webb

Horror 82 min.

MPAA: R (for strong violent/gruesome accidents, language and a scene of sexuality)

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 21, 2009

The brazen title of writer-director Quentin Tarantino’s new film, “Inglourious Basterds,” refers to a team of Jewish-American soldiers whose specialty and sole objective is killing Nazis — or as their comedic leader, Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) says it, “killin’ ‘Nat-sees.’”

Running 153 minutes, “Inglourious Basterds” unfolds in episodic chapters, some of which play like self-contained short films. In fact, the opening chapter is incredible; its scenario is simple: In 1941 in Nazi-occupied France, German Col. Hans Landa, a so-called “Jew hunter,” visits a dairy farmer who is suspected of harboring Jews.

This first vignette and another later chapter set in a basement tavern are exceptional in the way they build suspense. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace in modern cinema to use quick editing and loud, dissonant music for jarring the audience into feeling tension. But Tarantino has trusted that his spectators will be patient enough to enjoy longer scenes that slowly build genuine suspense.

The trailer gives the impression we’ll be seeing a wall-to-wall war film bathed in blood, but “Inglourious Basterds” is a dialogue-driven drama punctuated only occasionally by explicit violence. Even so, Tarantino fans will be pleased with disturbingly real depictions of strangling, shooting, scalping and a baseball-bat scene that makes the one in “The Untouchables” (1987) seem mild.

“Inglourious Basterds” is an excellent film that is cleverly conceived, smartly written and well executed. It has the all-around craftsmanship of an Academy Award Best Picture contender, though I’m not sure its mid-year release date will afford it the nomination it deserves.

Certain aspects of the film are inspired by actual events and people, but nitpicking historians can take the day off, because much of the movie is fiction.

Those who have an aversion to subtitles should know that you’ll be reading 50 to 60 percent of the dialogue, unless you’re fluent in German, French and Italian.

Understandably, some people have incorrectly assumed that Tarantino’s film is a remake of the 1978 Italian flick called “The Inglorious Bastards,” but this new movie is hardly a retread, despite its nearly identical title. The older film is also set amid World War II, has rogue American soldiers — in France — and some Nazis, but Tarantino’s story is altogether different, not to mention superior.

With “Inglourious Basterds,” Tarantino delivers another memorable film that’s an odd blend of ferocious, realistic violence and offbeat humor.

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Brad Pitt / Christoph Waltz / Diane Kruger

Drama 153 min.

MPAA: R (for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality)

District 9 (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 14, 2009

For those who insist that “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” are good movies, I suggest contrasting them with “District 9,” Peter Jackson’s sci-fi action-drama that not only has spectacular special effects, it also has an intriguing story line that’s enhanced by the subtext of its themes. In other words, it’s a blockbuster that’s entertaining visually and intellectually.

“District 9” is presented as a documentary that examines an alien invasion. Starting with archival footage from 1982, the film shows how a gigantic alien aircraft arrives over Johannesburg, South Africa, and looms ominously in mid-air. After three months of silence from the visitors, an organization called Multi-National United (MNU) flies up to the alien ship and cuts its way inside, where it finds bug-like extraterrestrials, struggling and malnourished.

On the ground below the ship, MNU establishes a holding camp called District 9, a slum that becomes home to 1.8 million aliens for the next 20 years after their arrival, during which time, tensions and intolerance between humans and aliens result in escalating unrest.

The costly inconvenience of hosting the invaders has made them a despised nuisance. Humans want the aliens to leave just as much as they want to return home, but their ship is inoperable. Violent and unsettling mayhem ensues.

“District 9” has a bizarre, almost comedic beginning with a pseudo-documentary style similar to a Christopher Guest film, like “Waiting for Guffman.” Then the tone suddenly grows more dire, with footage resembling “Cloverfield” or “Quarantine” — minus the motion sickness.

The aliens themselves are unsightly creatures, seemingly inept delinquents that chew on tires and love cat food more than E.T. loves Reese’s Pieces. Their language is reminiscent of Greedo’s, from “Star Wars,” which means their dialogue is necessarily subtitled.

“District 9” does an excellent job at shaping our initial opinion of the visitors, provoking our contempt and an “us” versus “them” attitude. Then it pulls the rug from beneath us, stirring our compassion and sympathy for the aliens, reversing the target of our disgust to humans.

“District 9” is a blatant, metaphorical commentary on illegal “aliens” and refugee camps, and the moral questions of humanitarianism associated with them. It also addresses sacrificing life in the name of scientific or militaristic progress.

“District 9” is the best film of the summer and perhaps the best film so far this year.

Directed by Neill Blomkamp

Sharlto Copley / Vanessa Haywood / Nathalie Boltt

Sci-Fi 112 min.

MPAA: R (for bloody violence and pervasive language)

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 7, 2009

The 3- and 3/4-inch G.I. Joe action figures that this movie is based on had a tendency to break in certain places. If “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” were a toy instead of a movie, it would have a broken rubber band, two missing thumbs and no groin.

Apologists will dismiss any criticism of a movie based on a toy line, but after seeing the first “Transformers” brought to the screen with some degree of competence, we know it can be done.

“The Rise of Cobra” is set in the “not-too-distant future” when a weapons manufacturer has developed “nanomites” — fearsome weaponry that can “eat all materials,” including tanks and entire cities.

Naturally, such destructive technology must not fall into the wrong hands, like, say, a budding terrorist organization bent on world conquest. And when that unthinkable scenario occurs, another group of “real American heroes” must counter its attack.

“The Rise of Cobra” gives us some of our favorite characters, such as Storm Shadow, Zartan, a sultry Baroness, and of course, Snake Eyes, whose appearances are quite good. Snake Eyes is played by Ray Park, the incredibly gifted martial artist who also played Darth Maul in “The Phantom Menace” and Toad in “X-Men.”

But unfortunately, many of Park’s combat sequences against Storm Shadow are filmed up close, so we can’t tell what’s happening. That’s how they make older guys like Liam Neeson look fast, but Park doesn’t need close-ups.

As its title suggests, “The Rise of Cobra” is a multi-faceted origins story. We get to learn the origins of Destro, Cobra Commander and the reasons for the bad blood between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow. Despite its futuristic, Battle Force 2000 appearance, “The Rise of Cobra” mostly features the earlier characters, which is to say, there is no Serpentor, Crimson Twins, Emesis Enforcer or any other Cobra-La kooks.

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is frequently boring and seldom entertaining. It is little more than a colorful strobe light masquerading as a motion picture. In other words, if you’re not a G.I. Joe fan — circa 1982 to 1986 — don’t even bother with this movie, unless you’re the kind of person who’s easily entertained by blinking Christmas lights.

Note: Readers feeling nostalgic for their Hasbro treasures should visit the invaluable YoJoe.com, and click on the “Toy Archive” link.

Directed by Stephen Sommers

Channing Tatum / Sienna Miller / Marlon Wayans

Action 118 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout)