The Reaping

Posted on April 5, 2007 at 12:38 pm

F+
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for violence, disturbing images and some sexuality.
Profanity: None
Alcohol/ Drugs: Alcohol, implied date rape drug
Violence/ Scariness: Explicit and graphic peril and violence, including rape, decomposing dead body, child in peril, graphic suicide
Diversity Issues: Strong female and minority characters
Date Released to Theaters: 2007
Date Released to DVD: 2007
Amazon.com ASIN: B000U7169M

Ancient scrolls foretell the birth of an evil child begat of an unholy union between an episode of “The X-Files” and Nicolas Cage’s The Wicker Man, from the branch of the family that produced Children of the Corn. Okay, so scrolls didn’t really warn us about “The Reaping.” But someone should have.


The action begins as we find ourselves on a mission with ordained priest Katherine Winter (Hilary Swank). Having left her life as a religious missionary, she now travels the world to sleuth out scientific explanations for so-called “religious” phenomena. After her husband and young daughter were brutally killed during a disastrous trip to the Sudan, she renounced her faith and began life as an academic and “The Reaping” centers on Winter’s experience in a small town that seems to be going through the biblical plagues at the hand of a young child.


Surprisingly, the film begins strong, as it definitely gets its first hour from the “X Files” side of the family. A lovingly platonic and likable relationship between Winter and a former-student-turned-colleague, Ben (Idris Elba), and a sincere handling of the human fascination with supernatural phenomenon echo some of the best episodes of the late television show. There are still, of course, uninspired moments such as one where Winters and Ben roll down a dirt path in an oversize SUV, waving their respective cell phones, looking for service and practically screaming, “No service! You know what this means!” (It means we’re in a horror movie).


But as the intriguing and even somewhat innocent “river of blood” and “storm of frogs” give way to incredibly gruesome scenes, including but not limited to a mangled, decomposing body, hanging child skeletons, a man burned alive in a locked room and adults attempting to strap a screaming and terrified child down so they can kill her in the name of sacrifice, it quickly becomes clear that no horror film could be good enough to justify such horrific things.


What once held some promise of being a clever film explodes into a mess of trite plot devices and sad attempts to explain the rapidly degenerating vision of the filmmakers, who seem hell-bent (pardon the pun) on imparting some sort of religious lesson (As the end draws near, a newly re-religious Winter proclaims with fervor, “It’s God’s will!”). Any sincere motives in reaching spiritual conclusions are nullified by the sickening and horrendous use of child sacrifice as the premise of a film meant for entertainment. As a cynic, Winter states, “The only miracle is that people keep believing”. When the credits roll, you realize the only scary thing about this film is that filmmakers thought it would be the least bit entertaining.


Parents should know that there are many disturbing scenes and concepts in this film, including several deaths and scary moments such as a suicide where a woman is shown placing a handgun into her mouth (with gunshot heard directly after). There is also a fairly extensive sex scene (later revealed as a drugged rape) with limited nudity and menstruation is discussed as a character is shown with blood down her leg at the age of 12.


Families who see this film might want to discuss which aspects of the film they found scary and frightening in a fun way and which aspects may have been deeply disturbing and upsetting. What makes an enjoyable horror film? How might the plot have gone differently to make the thrills more innocent and less offensive?


Families who enjoy this film might also enjoy the similarly themed Rosemary’s Baby and The Devil’s Advocate.

Thanks to guest critic AB.

Related Tags:

 

Movies -- format Thriller

Grindhouse

Posted on April 4, 2007 at 12:43 pm

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, nudity and drug use.
Profanity: Very strong language, including racial epithets
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, smoking, drug use
Violence/ Scariness: Extreme, intense, graphic, and grisly violence, guns, knives, fighting, torture, many characters injured and killed, attempted rape
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: 2007
Date Released to DVD: 2007
Amazon.com ASIN: B003VMFWYI

NOTE: This movie has extremely graphic, grisly, violent, and disgusting images, situations, and characters. It is not appropriate for anyone under 18 or for many adults. The positive rating is only for its intended audience, fans of this genre.


Famously violent but critically acclaimed film-makers Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are fans of “grindhouse” movies. A grindhouse was a theater specializing in exploitation films — movies made with no artistic pretense or aspiration, with more attention to the advertising than the storyline. These films were usually not just low-budget but almost no-budget, poorly shot, poorly acted, poorly written. But they had a visceral appeal — usually visceral in literal terms because what they lacked in refinement or insights about the human condition they made up in shock and outrageousness. Despite their undisguised origins as purely commercial — exploitation king Roger Corman is proudly the only producer in history who has made money on every single film — these movies have an unpretentious appeal and even a gritty sincerity that can hold up well against Hollywood confections, especially those that try to hide their resolute commercialism under a veil of pomposity.


Tarantino and Rodriguez have re-created an evening at a grindhouse or a drive-in, circa 1970. It’s a double feature complete with fake trailers (from up and coming directors Eli Roth of Hostel, Edgar Wright (Shawn of the Dead, and Rob Zombie House of 1000 Corpses) and a commercial for the restaurant next door (note that characters from the movie are drinking sodas with its logo), faux scratches on the film and “missing frames” and reels and perfect replica opening credits. Somehow, the stories retain their 70’s vibes, even though they include a few updates like text messaging and references to the war in Iraq.


The first movie is “Planet Terror,” a zombiefest directed by Rodriguez. A pole dancer named Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan of “Charmed”), her former boyfriend Wray (Freddie Rodriguez of Showtime’s “Six Feet Under”), a sheriff (Terminator’s Michael Biehn) and his barbecueing brother (Jeff Fahey), an adulterous doctor with three big needles of anesthetic, and her squabbling twin babysitters face off against some oozing flesh-eaters in a battle so completely over-the-top that it almost makes sense when the lovely leg that got chomped off is replaced by a machine gun as a prosthetic. Talk about your pistol-packin’ mama. And when the zombies come, it’s like the “Thriller” video, without the dancing — or the happy ending.


The second film, directed by Tarantino, is “Death Proof,” starring Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike, a guy who drives a souped-up “death proof” stunt car and likes to use it as a weapon of mass destruction. Some of the pretty ladies he goes after include Sydney Poitier (daughter of the Oscar-winner), Tracie Toms and Rosario Dawson (both from Rent), and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (who appeared with Russell in the very different Sky High). This film has some characteristically choice Tarantino dialogue, cheerfully profane, hilariously frank, and divinely corkscrew, like a mash-up between Preston Sturges and Richard Pryor. The first half is mostly talk, talk that manages to mingle street insults, girly confidences, and Robert Frost, plus of course a lot of movie name checks. But when the don’t-take-rides-from-strangers action starts, it is stunning.

The break-out star here is real-life stuntwoman Zoe Bell (playing a stuntwoman named Zoe). She more than holds her own as an actress — while she is in the midst of one of the most astonishing stunts in movie history, the “captain’s mast” — with a devilish sizzle and fearless spirit that seem completely natural and utterly engaging.


Rodriguez and Tarantino also bring high spirits that give an organic brio to their mastery of story, tone, and visual story-telling. Their unabashed affection for the grindhouse genre keeps them from becoming arch, po-mo, or self-consciously ironic. This is a tribute, not a parody. At times, they seem to fetishize everything, even the literal film stock itself. There are loving close-ups of female curves, gleaming weapons, and gory wounds. There is sheer delight in the over-the-topiness: when someone says “no-brainer,” he means it literally. They have honored the sources that inspired and entertained them with a low-down, dirty, crazy, joyride that is packing heat, along with some nastily entertaining thrills.

Parents should know that this film includes just about everything that could be of concern in evaluating its appropriateness. It has non-stop intense, gross, graphic, grisly, and disgusting images of violence, including zombies chomping on bodies, attempted rape, torture, and every possible kind of homicidal butchery. Characters use very strong language, smoke, drink, and smoke marijuana. There is nudity, and there are sexual references and situations including a same-sex kiss and adultery. A strength of the movie is the portrayal of loyal friendships between diverse characters.


Audiences who see this movie should talk about how some of today’s most acclaimed directors were inspired by low-budget movies with no artistic aspirations.


Audiences who appreciate this movie will appreciate the other films by its directors, including Pulp Fiction and the Robert Rodriguez Mexico Trilogy, (El Mariachi, Desperado, and Once Upon A Time In Mexico). They may also enjoy some of the movies that inspired this one, including Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, Russ Meyer’s Faster Pussycat Kill!..kill!, Vanishing Point, and Gone in 60 Seconds (the original, of course). And they will enjoy the comic books that inspired some of these movies, like those collected in The EC Archives: Tales From The Crypt Volume 1.

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Movies -- format Science-Fiction Thriller

The Lookout

Posted on March 28, 2007 at 2:13 pm

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language, some violence and sexual content.
Profanity: Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, smoking, drug use
Violence/ Scariness: Tense and violent situations, some graphic, many characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters: 2007
Date Released to DVD: 2007
Amazon.com ASIN: B000QFCD8Q

In this tense and twisty thriller, our narrator and central figure is Chris (the stunning Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a one-time high school hockey star and dreamboat who was brain-damaged in a car crash on prom night. Now, he works as the night janitor in a bank and goes to life skills classes to practice “sequencing” and tone down the “disinhibition” that allows him to make inappropriate comments to his pretty caseworker. At night, while he is at work, a friendly cop comes by to bring him donuts and sometimes he plays janitor hockey with his mop and thinks about how much he wants to be “who I was.” The hardest part of sequencing is finding a way to move his own story forward.


“I wake up,” he says. “I shower. With soap.” But is that before shaving or after? And “I cry sometimes” — is that supposed to be there? Chris has a little notebook for writing everything down to make sure he gets the sequences right.


But the sequences don’t seem to be right. He has the patient guidance of Lewis (Jeff Daniels), the blind roommate he met at the life skills center. And he has the confused affection of his wealthy family. They have kept his old room the way he left it, filled with trophies and the wheelchair from rehab folded up in the corner. His father still expects him to play chess. They seem to have more trouble than he does sequencing him into his future.


And then Chris meets Gary (Matthew Goode), who remembers him the way he was and doesn’t seem to think he’s changed much. Gary introduces him to Luvlee (Isla Fisher of The Wedding Crashers) and she seems to think he’s pretty great the way he is. They show him a heady glimpse of himself as powerful, wanted, friended by people who see no reason to feel sorry for him.


And capable of…something adventurous and dashing? Gary wants to rob a bank. The one where Chris and Barney Fife have donuts every night. Has Chris missed a step in his sequence and gotten himself into a situation he can’t sequence himself out of?


The genre of the “impaired narrator” provides instant interest for audiences, who must try to guess what is going on based on limited information from the character who is telling it. Of course, writers always dole out information in a highly controlled way. But this personification of narrative control creates a puzzle that immediately makes our involvement more intense and alert.


Gordon-Levitt is the real deal, a fascinating performer who creates the pre-crash Chris so compellingly in a few brief moments that we can miss him — and glimpse him under the slightly scrambled version he becomes. We’ve seen too many showboat-y performances by actors who love to play the look-at-me-act-with-one-hand-behind-my-back award-bait disabled roles. But Gordon-Levitt and Daniels give us characters who happen to have some disabilities, fascinating for who they are, not for what they can and cannot do. And Goode is…great. In the past relegated to playing the cute English guy with the cute English accent in movies like Match Point and Chasing Liberty, here he is as silky and menacing as a cougar. First-time director Scott Frank makes the most of his own tightly-written script, never neglecting character for action. He makes our hearts pound, but he also makes us care.

Parents should know that this movie has very mature material, including explicit and graphic peril and violence, with many characters injured or killed. Characters use very strong language, drink, smoke, and use drugs. Many of the characters are criminals who threaten, bully, cheat, and steal. There are sexual references and situations, including nudity. A strength of the movie is the portrayal of disabled characters who are capable and dedicated.


Families who see this movie should talk about “sequencing,” and why it is important for the characters and in storytelling. How does the structure of this movie help to make that point?

Audiences who enjoy this film will also enjoy Memento. They will also enjoy other outstanding tense thrillers like A Simple Plan, Shallow Grave, and Out of Sight, with a superb screenplay by this film’s writer-director.

Related Tags:

 

Crime Drama Movies -- format Thriller

Shooter

Posted on March 16, 2007 at 4:06 pm

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong graphic violence and some language.
Profanity: Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, smoking, giving beer to a dog
Violence/ Scariness: Extreme and intense peril and violence, including heavy artillery, shotguns, suicide
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters as both good and bad guys
Date Released to Theaters: 2007
Date Released to DVD: 2007
Amazon.com ASIN: B000Q6GUTI

Pulitzer prize-winning film critic Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post has seen a lot of movies, both good and bad, and this film, based on his highly cinematic novel Point of Impact, shows an able, if somewhat derivative, sense of narrative propulsion. It’s a little bit Rambo, a little bit Death Wish, a little bit Under Seige, a little bit Die Hard.


The premise almost sounds like a parody of a movie pitch: Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg), a crack shot of a Marine sharpshooter becomes disillusioned after he and his best pal and spotter are abandoned by their commanders and the pal is killed. When some big shots track him down in his cabin in the woods to tell him they need his help to stop an assassination attempt on the President, he agrees to go back into service. But he is betrayed again, and set up as the fall guy for an attempted assassination in a complex conspiracy that reaches into government and big business. When everything closes in on him, he has to rely on the generic pretty girl with spunk — the widow of his spotter (Kate Mara), the generic wiseman/expert who knows the secrets (a specialist who’s even deeper in the woods than Swagger was) and a brand new FBI agent (Michael Pena of Crash) with a fresh perspective who doesn’t buy the too-convenient story about how Swagger planned to kill the President.


The idea satisfies a deep-seated fantasy. We all think we deserve an apology from someone and we all want our special talents to be discerned and appreciated by people in positions of authority. The big shots seek Swagger out to say they’re sorry and they need him. They acknowledge that he’s the best there is.

And then, after they betray him and try to kill him, Swagger (and we, through him) gets that oh-so-nice “Who IS that guy?” gratification of outsmarting those high-powered but corrupt guys at the top. And then he gets revenge — with extreme prejudice.


Some people will find that satisfying, too, but I found it over the top, thuggish, and brutal. The movie’s strengths are its appealing hero, a performance of surprising warmth and humor by Pena, and some clever use of expertise, especially in Swagger’s explanation of the elements that have to be factored in to hit an extra-long-range target (everything, including the rotation of the earth). And those colorful flags snapping in the breeze? They’re not there for decoration.

But then there is its clunky obviousness: The name has to be Swagger? And he has to walk toward us in slo-mo? And the bad guys have to cackle over their total domination and corruption? And there have to be not one, not two, but three explaining villains? And the overheatedness gets out of control by the end, with Swagger taking too many laws and too many lives into his own hands.

Parents should know that this movie has extreme and intense action-style peril and violence with some very graphic and disturbing images. Characters are are shot, stabbed, impaled, tortured, and punched. Many are injured and killed, including a dog. Characters are assassinated and a character commits suicide on-screen. There is a pro-vigilante aspect to some of the killing that audience members may find disturbing. They may also be disturbed by references to genocide, rape, torture, and political corruption. Characters smoke, drink, and use strong language. There are some sexual references, including rape, and a character wears skimpy clothing. And there is an Anna Nicole Smith joke that was clearly made before her death.


Families who watch this movie should talk about whether and when it is appropriate to take the law into your own hands.


Families who appreciate this movie will also appreciate In the Line of Fire and paranoia classics like The Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor, The Pelican Brief, and Under Siege. And they will enjoy the book, and sequels Time to Hunt and Black Light by Stephen Hunter.

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Movies -- format Thriller

Premonition

Posted on March 13, 2007 at 10:57 am

F+
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some violent content, disturbing images, thematic material and brief language.
Profanity: Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Smoking, wine, pharmaceuticals
Violence/ Scariness: Intense peril, some graphic injuries, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters have a close friendship
Date Released to Theaters: 2007
Date Released to DVD: 2007
Amazon.com ASIN: B000QGDY0G

With little style and no substance, this low-wattage forgettable thriller plays like a rejected episode of “The Twilight Zone.” Linda (Sandra Bullock) wakes up every day in a different reality (and a different sleeping outfit — she has quite the collection of nighties and pajamas). One day, she opens the door to a cop who tells her that her husband has been killed in a car accident. The next day, he’s in the kitchen having breakfast and watching television. Another day, it’s his funeral, and she can’t remember how her daughter got cuts all over her face and some scary people are coming to take her to a hospital. Another day, she goes to see him in his office and wonders if there might be something going on with that pretty new assistant manager (Amber Valetta). She begins to figure out that she’s living the days out of order. Can she change the future she has already experienced?


Bullock is appealing and committed as always, Valetta shows again that she has a sympathetic screen presence and can make the most of a few moments, and Nia Long as Linda’s best friend makes us wish the movie was about her. But the two things you are entitled to expect from a movie like this one are some “aha” moments as all the pieces of the plot come together and some “ahh” moments as the main characters learn something meaningful. What we get instead are a couple of “gotcha” fake-outs that are more exploitive than spooky (and no surprise to anyone who has the vaguest idea of the movie’s premise) and a “that’s it?” moment at the end that makes Linda’s character seem creepy rather than sympathetic.


Haven’t we lived through this before? And was it just as bad the last time? One reality she unfortunately can’t change is the ineluctable trudge toward the appallingly boneheaded ending.

Parents should know that this movie has some intense peril and disturbing images. A character is killed and a child is hurt. There is a bloody dead bird (later we see what happened to it). Characters use brief strong language, smoke, drink wine, and pharmaceutical medication is prescribed and forcibly injected. There is a non-explicit sexual situation and there are references to adultery. Issues of destiny and premonition may be upsetting to some audience members. A strength of the movie is the portrayal of a close friendship between diverse characters.


Families who see this movie should talk about times they have felt they knew something that was going to happen. What did Linda decide was worth fighting for?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the much better Frequency and Deja Vu (intense and graphic violence and terrorism). The Family Man and Me, Myself & I are non-thriller explorations of roads not taken in family relationships.

Related Tags:

 

Drama Fantasy Movies -- format Thriller
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik