Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Rise of the Guardians
Directed by Peter Ramsey.
Rated PG, 97 minutes.
Cast:
Chris Pine
Alec Baldwin
Hugh Jackman
Jude Law
Isla Fisher
Dakota Goyo
Khamani Griffin
Jacob Bertrand
Kamil McFadden
Olivia Mattingly
Dominique Grund

Turns out there really is a slew of mythological beings collectively known as the Guardians watching over our children. As we learn very early on, in this movie if not in real life, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Sandman are all indeed real. They’ve all been on their jobs since the end of the Dark Ages when they brought hope to the world, overthrowing the rule of the Pitch Back, AKA The Boogeyman (Law). Now, the bad guy is back to reclaim the world. On the advice of The Man in the Moon, The Guardians go outside of their ranks and turn to the reckless and mischievous Jack Frost (Pine) to help them stave off Pitch.

We immediately notice that the design of each character, with the possible exception of the Tooth Fairy, is a bit off from what we’re expecting. This is actually a stroke of genius that adds depth and personality to iconically mysterious figures. It brings them a bit closer to us, enough for us to identify with, as much as that’s possible. As intended, the one we relate to most is Jack. Far more than any of the others, he’s one of us. He’s unsure of himself and longs for attention and approval. That said, the Easter Bunny might be the most fun. He’s wary of Jack, downright dislikes him and lets it be known. Hugh Jackman has a great time voicing the character and it shows.

Character designs not withstanding, the movie has an interesting overall look. It seems to sit somewhere between full-blown CGI and traditional animation. This works nicely. Even better is the contrast between the bright, cheery colors surrounding our heroes and the gray pallet that adorns the villain. It reinforces the notion of good against evil.

Speaking of evil, it’s the bad guy that really makes the movie work. Jude Law is simply amazing. His methodical cadence is symbolic of Pitch’s carefully measured actions. Most of the time he’s also unsettlingly calm. To boot, he exudes confidence that he will be victorious, making him a very formidable foe.

On the surface, things boil down to that good guys/bad guy stuff. That aspect alone is fun, but there’s more to it than that. It plays on our childhood hopes and fears to create both excitement and dread. On an even deeper level, it’s possible to see the entire plot as a test of faith and what happens if we don’t have it. No, this doesn’t get preachy and it’s not an advertisement for any religion. However, the theme is present. More than any of this, it’s just plain fun to watch.

MY SCORE: 8/10

[dell71]

The Intouchables
Directed by Olivier Nakache.
2011. Rated R, 113 minutes.
Cast:
François Cluzet
Omar Sy
Audrey Fleurot
Clotilde Mollet
Anne Le Ny
Alba Gaïa Kraghede Bellugi
Cyril Mendy
Christian Ameri
Marie-Laure Descoureaux
Absa Dialou Toure
Salimata Kamate

We follow the adventures of Philippe (Cluzet) and Driss (Sy). Philippe is a wealthy quadriplegic with a rebellious teenage daughter and an attentive and devoted staff. Driss, has applied for the job of being his live-in healthcare assistant despite not having any experience in the field whatsoever. Fresh out of jail, he just wants to get proof he’s actually searching for a job so he can receive unemployment benefits. When the two men meet they have a conversation that intrigues Philippe who decides to hire Driss despite his obvious shortcomings and a plethora of more qualified applicants. They become bestest buds through some trials and tribulations, mostly due to differences in social class. Based on a true story.

For the most part, The Intouchables is a charming movie. We enjoy watching this relationship develop between two guys from opposite ends of the universe. Their influence on one another is interesting and there is humor all along the way. There is also no denying that Sy has serious presence and dominates the screen as Driss. His smile lights it up and it doesn’t feel false when his character switches into angry mode. He never seems to have an unsure moment. It’s truly an infectious performance. As Philippe, Cluzet’s work is no less commendable. He emotes perfectly with just his face and endows the character with a perfect vulnerability. Quite the opposite of Driss, Philippe is a man filled with insecurities and one who has not had a friend in quite some time.

While the bromance aspect of our story works wonderfully, the movie struggles with Elisa (Bellugi), Philippe’s daughter. There is much fuss made about her, but the little bit of screen-time she gets doesn’t justify it. For example, there is a scene where Driss goes on a rant to Philippe about how she must be disciplined. Of course, this happens after he has a bit of run-in with her. He makes it seem, and others agree, as if she has chronic behavior problems. Nothing to this point establishes this so it doesn’t hold as much weight as seems to be intended. She’s barely seen, before or after this event and feels very much on the fringes of her father’s life. Members of the staff fare much better as Driss makes numerous sexual advances on Magalie (Fleurot), to no avail, and develops a kinship with Yvonne (Le Ny).

Similarly to Elisa, Driss’ own family exists only on the very edges of the plot. They’re only a device to show growth in him, but only does so in regards to his allegiance to Philippe. The one situation where he helps them out is something he probably would’ve done regardless of his own circumstances. This is merely a symptom of the the bigger problem. If you’ve been following me, you may know that I’m sensitive (overly?) to the use of the Magical Negro. If you have no idea what I’m talking about, I’ll explain. A Magical Negro is a black character with special powers who is only present in a story to use these abilities to benefit the white protagonist. Often, but not always, this involves sacrificing oneself for the well-being of his white friend. If you’re still not sure, think about the main (only?) black characters in The Legend of Bagger Vance, The Green Mile, or any one of a number of movies starring Morgan Freeman - The Shawshank Redemption, Driving Miss Daisy, The Bucket List, etc. Even in the most well-meaning of pictures this reeks of tokenism and, worse, a longing for the good old days of servitude. The Magical Negro is generally an American phenomenon, but is certainly present in this French production. Driss fits the definition to a tee. His special ability is getting Philippe to enjoy life. No matter how much anyone else cares for Philippe, they simply cannot get him to be anything other than the rich invalid they cater to.

That this is based on a true story makes it easier to swallow. That is, until the end when we see the actual people who inspired the movie. The caregiver does not appear to be black. I’m not against a person of one race playing a person traditionally thought to be of another so long as we’re talking works of pure fiction and race is not intrinsic to the character’s story. To use an extreme example to illustrate my point, Jamie Foxx will play a traditionally white villain in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I’ve no problem with this because the person he plays is only white because he was drawn that way many moons ago. Nothing about him suggests he has to be white. However, that same actor could not switch his role in Django Unchained with that of the slave-owner portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio. In other words, a person who more resembles the real life person may have provided us with the same cinematic experience without the racial undertones.

Then again, maybe not. Sy’s performance is so wonderful, I’m not sure another actor could replicate his magnetism and wring the same joy out of us. This is my dilemma. Emphasis on the word ‘my’. It’s possible I’m reading too much into it, looking at it from too American a viewpoint. Besides, there have been a number of good movies guilty of the same offense, a few of them great. Again, Shawshank immediately leaps to mind. That said, punctuated by my lengthy and overdue exhalation, The Intouchables is warm, funny, and despite its title, touching.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

[Senser81]

Trying to get a hold of the movie because I heard this heavily inspired "The Car."

Try harder.

[dell71]

American Reunion
Directed by Jon Hurwitz.
2012. Unrated Version, 114 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Biggs
Alyson Hannigan
Seann William Scott
Eugene Levy
Chris Klein
Thomas Ian Nicholas
Eddie Kaye Thomas
Ali Cobrin
Mena Suvari
Tara Reid
John Cho
Jennifer Coolidge
Dania Ramirez
Natasha Lyonne
Katrina Bowden
Shannon Elizabeth
Neil Patrick Harris

After two less successful sequels, and way too many straight-to-DVD spin-offs, the gang from the original American Pie is back. Steeped in raunch, fueled by a handful of classic scenes, and coining a term that’s spawned thousands of websites I don’t want my kids knowing about, that film instantly took its place in the pantheon of teen sex romps. This time, it seems the entire school missed their ten-year high school reunion and are getting together for their thirteenth.

Jim (Biggs) and Michelle (Hannigan) are still married and have a little baby boy, but no sex life. Oz (Klein) is a TV host on a sports show and has a free spirited model for a girlfriend. Kevin (Nicholas) is married to someone we don’t know and the movie doesn't really care about except for the fact that she doesn't make the trip. Finch (Thomas) is a globe-trotting adventurer who makes his way back to town for the special event. Stifler (Scott) is still Stifler and still living with his mom (Coolidge).

Among the various subplots that spring up, the most prominent involves Jim’s former next door neighbor Kara (Cobrin) whom he used to babysit. She’s turning eighteen this weekend and has the hots for him. You can decide for yourself whether she’s important to the movie because she actually poses a real threat to Jim’s marriage or because she spends a considerable amount of screen-time topless. That’s followed closely by Jim’s dad (Levy) trying to get back into the dating game now that his wife has passed. As for the other guys, old flames show up: Heather (Suvari) for Oz and Vicky (Reid) for Kevin. In all cases, things play out just as expected.

In a nutshell, that things proceed with so little in the way of surprises is this movie’s biggest problem. There’s nothing we don’t see coming, including ninety percent of the gags. A good portion of them are rehashes from the original, or recaps to make sure we remember what happened in that first movie. For instance, we’re shown Jim’s famous video taping scene several times. With so many telegraphed blows thrown, it’s no wonder our funny bone manages to dodge a high volume of them.

Occasionally, there are laughs. Most of them are due to Eugene Levy and that lovable awkwardness he always brings. For me, he is by far the funniest person in the whole series. It seems the movie itself, and really the entire franchise, wants it to be Stifler. I usually put him behind Jim, but I’ll give him second this time. He does give us the one truly unpredictable scene we have. It involves revenge on some young punks and not even his buddies know what he’s up to. Throughout the movie, he behaves so outlandishly as to scarcely seem human, but this forces to laugh on a couple of occasions.

The final act plays out somewhat strangely. I feel I have to reiterate that this has nothing to do with where all the narrative strands end up which is precisely where we thought they would. Nor does it have anything to do with the film using this time to give a cameo to seemingly every person who had a part in the original. That’s also to be expected. In fact, we wonder why they’re all back-logged like they are. What’s odd is it’s handling of these people. A number of them walk onto the screen and immediately announce their sexuality. They stroll over to one of our main characters who recognizes them and asks how they've been. They then respond with something like “I've been good and, oh, I’m gay now.” Who does this? Let’s forget about the fact that none of these people were gay before and concentrate on how they present themselves. Is the movie trying to be politically correct, or is it making some grand statement in support of gay right? Or, is it making fun of homosexuals? Either of the first two would be preferable to what it feels like which is the latter. If that’s the case, the movie even does a poor job of this. It seems to point a finger at them and laugh simply because they are gay and without having them do anything that could possibly make us laugh. The one possible exception being how uncomfortable Stifler’s Lacrosse buddies make him. Other times it comes across as if it’s a punch-line, but without the rest of the joke. As evidence, whenever a character makes their declaration there’s a pause in the dialogue like a public speaker might employ when they expect applause or laughter. This inspires neither.

Then there’s the even more bizarre reunion of John Cho’s character and his buddy from the first movie. It is their exchange from that original that gave us the term MILF. Here, when the two see each other, they repeat only that word to one another what feels like dozens of times during a tearful embrace. Again, what’s the joke? Are we merely supposed to crack up because they say this word? Or, is it because, as is heavily implied, they’re getting back together after breaking up their homosexual relationship? Or, is it simply the franchise patting itself on the back for birthing, or at least naming a sub-genre of porn. Maybe it’s all of those things. I dunno. In any event, it isn't funny.

The bottom line is that American Reunion is a middling comedy, at best, that doesn't always let us in on the jokes. The ones they do aren’t always funny. Occasionally, they are but not nearly enough to call this a good movie. Much like Stifler, it’s desperately clinging to its glorious past and fails to really recognize the changing of times, therefore stunting its own growth.

MY SCORE: 5/10

[Buzzman]

I have to agree that Jude Law in Rise of the Guardians is one of the mot impressive voice work I've seen in a cartoon.

[dell71]

The Master
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.
2012. Rated R, 143 minutes.
Cast:
Joaquin Phoenix
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Amy Adams
Laura Dern
Ambyr Childers
Jesse Plemons
Rami Malek
Madisen Beaty
Lena Endre
Kevin J. O’Connor
Amy Ferguson
Joshua Close
Patty McCormack

Right away we come to understand that Freddie Quell (Phoenix) is a tad off. After serving in World War II, reintegrating into normal society has been an issue for him. Our natural inclination to sympathize with veterans is tested because we get the sense he wasn’t wrapped too tight even before the war. And he’s overly obsessed with two things: getting drunk and getting laid. He manages the former practically every night; the latter, not at all.

One drunken night, Freddie wanders into the circle of Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman), AKA The Master to his followers. He’s written a book, teaches cryptic lessons and performs strange rituals to enlighten us all. In effect, he’s started his own religion which many would call a cult. From everything I’ve read, the guy is based on Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Makes sense. Anyhoo, he takes a shine to Freddie and begins “processing,” or indoctrinating him into “The Cause.” We spend the rest of the movie watching The Master try to tame this particularly wild beast.

Charges of fraud and other improprieties against Dodd happen from time to time. We also wonder how much control over The Master his wife Peggy (Adams) has. These things are interesting, but neither holds our attention like the battle of wills waged by The Master and Freddie. Therefore, our enjoyment of this film is derived almost entirely from the dynamics between the two men. The only other thing that really perks us up is the same battle of wills Freddie is fighting with himself. If he simply can’t control himself, how does Dodd ever hope to?

Facilitating our intrigue, we get a pair of wonderful performances from Hoffman and Phoenix. Hoffman is perfectly charismatic as the leader of a budding way of thought, no matter how out there it may be. In an exemplary manner, he pulls off his character’s ability to instantly adapt his explanations to most lines of questioning and knack for shouting down anyone not persuaded by his answers. The work Phoenix turns in is flat amazing. From the start, he fully embodies this raging man-child who is understanding of little more than pleasure and pain. In any year in which Daniel Day-Lewis hadn’t convinced people he was actually Abraham Lincoln, Phoenix may very well have walked off with the Oscar that he was nominated for.

Unfortunately, deciphering what we’re supposed to take from this movie is no easy task. As it rolls along, it seems to be peeling back Dodd’s many fraudulent layers, but it never follows through in any tangible way. Most notably, Dodd’s own son is presented as a non-believer, but nothing is ever done with this once we learn it. The young man just keeps going along with the program while wearing a pissed off look on his face. It might also be an examination of Freddie’s sanity, or lack thereof. Much of the film at least hints at that idea, while two scenes in particular intently focus on it. Well, maybe. The first includes a party where many of the followers are happily playing music, clapping and dancing while the very drunk Dodd sings a tune. It so happens that all the women are standing around naked. It’s shown as if this may only be Freddie’s perspective on things. However, it’s also followed by a rather strange moment between Dodd and Peggy that suggests otherwise. Later, the rather lengthy “window to the wall” scene shows that poor sap Freddie cracking up while made to walk repeatedly from one end of a room to the other. Then again, it’s more likely this is just to showcase Dodd trying to break him as he attempts on numerous occasions. It’s also entirely possible that, as the ending suggests, this is all about Freddie’s quest to get a woman into bed and just how intricately tied to his happiness the success of this mission is. Therefore, when The Master ends we may be hit by a wave of confusion as we wonder what we just watched. In this case, that’s a good thing. We have much to talk about.

Whatever it is, Paul Thomas Anderson directs it in a manner that makes it difficult to look away from. The shots are beautiful and, as stated, Hoffman and Phoenix command the screen. Many of their scenes together are scintillating. The director brings this out with excellent story-telling skills. Some people will take issue with the story he’s telling, or more specifically, they’ll wonder what the story is about.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10

[Tailback U]

I tried to watch The Master the other night but it bored me to death and I fell asleep. Maybe give it another shot but I doubt it.

[dell71]

The Master isn't for everyone.

[dell71]

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2
Directed by Bill Condon.
2012. Rated PG-13, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Kristen Stewart
Robert Pattinson
Taylor Lautner
Mackenzie Foy
Peter Facinelli
Elizabeth Reaser
Ashley Greene
Jackson Rathbone
Maggie Grace
Dakota Fanning
Billy Burke
Michael Sheen
Kellan Lutz
Nikki Reed
Wendell Pierce

When last we saw our favorite co-dependently miserable couple, Bella (Stewart) was giving birth to their half-vampire, half-human, all-emo baby girl, Renesmee (played mostly by Mackenzie Foy). It was such a difficult delivery, mom almost died. To save her, Edward (Pattinson) finally turns his bride into one of the undead. Continuing the franchise’s standard practice of completely ignoring traditional vampire lore whenever it’s not actively defecating all over it, Breaking Dawn – Part 2 opens with Bella getting a good look at her new, and somehow, less pale self as she and Edward share a loving embrace in front of the mirror. Sigh. Face palm. Okay. I can. I can get through this.

To catch Bella up on the plot, and remind us, it comes to light that Jacob “imprinted” upon Renesmee, or claimed her for lack of a better, more spoiler friendly word. Soon through a sighting by Irina (Grace), those head vampires known as the Volturi hear about the Cullen’s bundle of joy and want the whole clan dead. Slowly, very very slowly, they make their way to Forks. This means we spend the better part of our two hours watching the Cullens gathering help from vampires far and near for their potential showdown.

There is very good reason the movie plays out the way it does. There is no more to the plot. Everything the franchise is built on ended with Breaking Dawn – Part 1, or presumably, about halfway through the actual book. What we have here is two hours of the filmmakers trying to figure out how to end their tale. With the whole metaphor for abstinence thing being neatly wrapped up, it would’ve been way too merciful on me to end it right after Bella’s transformation with a ‘happily ever after’ moment. I suppose it could be argued that we’re on to an anti-abortion rant, but I really don’t feel like going down that road. Instead, I’ll give some credit to the powers that be for wringing every last cent they possibly could out of this franchise…I mean not taking the easy way out and going an extra step. Disastrous it may be, but it’s a step.

Why is it disastrous? For starters, I’ve told you practically everything that happens, really nothing at all. To keep us occupied there are the occasional cuts to the bad guys getting news on our heroes, vowing to kill them, and a welcome demonstration of how evil they are. These demonstrations are generally put on by Dakota Fanning who I’m pretty sure performs more decapitations than she has lines. Cool. As far as the good guys, Carlisle (Facinelli) is even more closely impersonating Professor Xavier as those who answer his call for help are much more like X-Men than anything in any vampire flick I’ve ever seen. They come complete with unique powers and the standard gallery of attitudes and personalities. And the answer is no. Sunlight doesn’t seem to affect anyone. Nobody even sparkles anymore. Not cool.

This gathering of mutants, including Bella trying to figure out how to use her special power, is almost excusable because we know we’ll get to see this stuff put to use in a big climactic battle scene. What’s not excusable under any circumstances is the absolute incompetence on display, even for this series, whenever the plot turns to Charlie (Burke), Bella’s dad. I’ll sum it all up by relaying one instance for you. We’re never told exactly how much time passes between the beginning and end of the movie, but it doesn’t seem like it’s more than a few weeks, a few months at the most. Jeez, the Volturi are slow. Let’s suppose it’s even as much as a year. By this time, the “baby” Renesmee looks like she’s at least seven or eight years old. Charlie first sees her looking like a true newborn. The next time we witness the two of them together, which is near the end and the oldest we see her look, all he can say is how she’s grown at least half a foot since the last time he’s seen her. Huh? That’s it? I get that he’s not the most perceptive guy in the world, after all he still knows nothing of his daughter’s “condition,” but c’mon!

Sigh. Let’s move on to something I said I wasn’t going to mention, but since we’re on the subject of the baby, here it goes. Human beings age while vampires do not, even in the “Twilight” zone. Scratch that reference, this franchise has no business being mentioned in the same book, let alone the same sentence as Rod Serling’s iconic series. Anyhoo, doesn’t it stand to reason that Renesmee would age slower than the rest of us, not faster? Of course, that’s assuming such a birth could be possible going by what literary and cinematic history tells us about vampires and my limited recall of seventh grade biology. Oh wait, I forgot which movie I was watching and mistakenly thought it cared about something other than teenagers professing their love for each other through the seemingly constipation inspired grimaces on their faces. My bad.

In the end, we get that big battle we spend so much time building toward. Sorta. If you haven’t seen it, you’ll either have to watch it, or take a guess what that means. I’ll give you a hint, though. It’s akin to the police telling an anxious crowd “Move along, folks. There’s nothing to see here.” Regardless, at least this part of the movie is fun. So many heads get severed it’s like a deleted scene from 300, sans blood, rippling abs and red capes, of course. Predictably, this only serves to make sure everyone, and I do mean everyone, gets that ‘happily ever after moment.’ Oh, sorry – spoiler alert. Hmph. As if you didn’t know.

MY SCORE: 4/10

[dell71]

Black Mama, White Mama
Directed by Eddie Romero.
1973. Rated R, 87 minutes.
Cast:
Pam Grier
Margaret Markov
Sid Haig
Lynn Borden
Zaldy Zshornack
Laurie Burton
Eddie Garcia
Alona Alegre
Dindo Fernando
Vic Diaz
Wendy Green
Lotis Key
Alfonso Carvajal

Black Mama, not actually called this in the movie, is played by the incomparable Pam Grier. That’s really all you need to know. Okay, maybe that’s all I need to know. After all, she’s Pam Grier. Any further description is unnecessary. For me. Since you’re not me, and probably not Pam Grier, I’ll indulge you with some of the particulars of this cinematic experience.

We meet Black Mama, and White Mama, on the bus on their way to an all-female prison camp where the two will be inmates. Black Mama is serving time on a possession charge. White Mama, not actually called this and played by a not so bad herself, Margaret Markov, is something of a political prisoner. We’re told she’s a revolutionary. Exactly what kind of revolutionary and what she’s fighting for, I’m not sure. Just suffice it to say it’s the 1970s and revolution is in the air.

The first third of the movie is pure testosterone driven Women-in-Prison fantasy. Mass shower scene? Check. Horseplay between the ladies during said shower scene? Check. All female and horny lesbian prison guards? Check. Horny lesbian guards getting rough with anyone that steps out of line? Check. All of these checks lead to our heroines being locked in “The Oven,” a form of (not exactly) solitary confinement. It’s basically a box barely big enough for the two ladies to stand inside back-to-back. There’s not even enough room for them to wear tops! Why no, nothing so far at all qualifies as gratuitous nudity. I mean, it’s all germane to the plot. Okay, I’m lying. Don’t judge me.

Right after getting out of “The Oven,” the ladies are informed they’re being taken elsewhere because some higher ups want to ask both of them some questions. This means another bus ride, only now, the two are shackled together. White Mama’s revolutionary buddies attack the bus and engage the cops in a shootout, during which the Mamas escape into the woods. From here, we get a rehash of The Defiant Ones, only with more guns, Sid Haig and random boobies all over the place. This. Is. Heaven.

Wait..what? Did I say that out loud? I’ll admit I can occasionally get in a really shallow mood and this movie perfectly fits those times. Then again, I’m not sure if my love for it speaks to my shallowness or my depth. What I mean is Pam Grier touches me in a deep…too much? Sorry. Give me a moment. I’m putting my ‘objective reviewer’ cap back on and adjusting it so that it fits…just…so. There.

Horrible, cringe-inducing dialogue? Check. Both intentional AND unintentional humor? Check. Wooden acting? Check. Excessive cheese, sleaze, and shameless exploitation? Check. Check. Double check.

And it stars Pam Grier. Drool. To hell with that objective nonsense. All of this movie’s sins are hereby forgiven. Henceforth, Black Mama, White Mama shall forever be described by the best, greatest, loveliest, most wonderful, terrific, terrible, worst, most horrible, crappiest, yet still endearing term in the history of moviedom: so bad it’s awesome!

MY SCORE: -10/10

[dell71]

Killer Joe
Directed by William Friedkin.
2012. Rated R, 101 minutes.
Cast:
Matthew McConaughey
Emile Hirsch
Juno Temple
Thomas Haden Church
Gina Gershon
Marc Macaulay

Chris (Hirsch) is in trouble. The cocaine he’s supposed to sell has been stolen and he doesn’t have the money to pay off his supplier. He suspects his mother, since she’s the only one who knew where it was and her long broken down Cadillac is suddenly running very well. Chris needs the money pretty quickly and he’s just heard about his mom’s fifty thousand dollar life insurance policy of which his little sister Dottie (Temple) is the beneficiary. He fills his dad Ansel (Church), now remarried to Charla (Gershon), and Dottie in on his idea and all are in agreement that it’s a good one. Not wanting to do the deed themselves, they hire Joe Cooper (McConaughey), a Dallas detective who provides such services on the side.

From there, the movie gets into some even more uncomfortable territory. Much of this surrounds Dottie. We’re not quite sure how old she is. She’s not as slow on the uptake as everyone around her thinks, but she’s plenty naïve and easily taken advantage of. When Chris and Ansel can’t pay Joe’s advance, he offers to take Dottie as a retainer. Let’s just say their “dinner date” can be tough to watch. However, that’s the twisted charm of this movie. It delights in parading an entire roster of unlikable people before us and mining the depths to which their souls have sank, if they ever had any in the first place. Dottie stands apart from the crowd, maintaining innocence despite doing things that would normally disqualify a person from being innocent. This is key to the movie’s success because even though we might not readily identify with this woman-child, we sympathize for her and find it difficult to lay blame at her feet. Juno Temple plays the role wonderfully. She fully personifies Dottie in the way this movie needs her to.

Joe is on the opposite end of the spectrum. He’s cold, calculating, and ruthless. The one trait that facilitates all those others is his complete lack of conscience. McConaughey plays it with a scary coolness. He’s always in control of the situation and is more than willing to make sure it plays out in his favor. He might be my favorite villain of 2012. Of course, he doesn’t see himself as a villain, but a businessman following through on a transaction, regardless of what actions that calls for.

Besides Temple and McConaughey, the rest of the cast is also great. Thomas Haden Church is perfectly dumb, Gina Gershon is thoroughly skanky (we literally meet her crotch first), and Emile Hirsch nails it as the brightest of a not very smart bunch.

The twists and turns of our plot develop because of people we don’t, or rarely, see. This works because it fosters the notion that these people are not only in this together, but completely alone with one another. Any problems they may face will have to be dealt with on their own. To paraphrase Ansel, and a very old saying, they must lie in the beds they’ve made. They, and we, know that the cavalry isn’t riding in to save the day and ‘happily ever after’ will be an elusive destination. Whatever happens is going to be determined by these few people we’ve spent all of our time with.

Eventually, things can get to be a bit on the outrageous side. I’ve already mentioned Joe’s “date” with Dottie. Later, the way he utilizes a chicken leg is something I’m fairly certain the Colonel never envisioned. Then we get to that ending. It’s purposely ambiguous and will flat piss some people off. The standard question that lingers is did she, or didn’t she? We can argue which for eternity, with evidence to support both sides. For some, this will leave way too much wiggle room. I suspect this makes Killer Joe a love-it or hate-it type of affair. Count me in the love-it camp.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10

[Senser81]

Thomas Haden Church is perfectly dumb

But...its got electrolytes!!

[Houston]

What are your feelings on the birth of Blade?

[dell71]

What are your feelings on the birth of Blade?

Are we talking "daywalker" Blade as compared to the Twilight baby? Truthfully, neither makes sense because judging from vampire lore they lack the necessary tools for creating life. I suppose we could say it's possible shortly after they've fed, but whatever. I'm willing to roll with it in either case but Twilight gave me more ammo to doubt it and more reason to nitpick it since it isn't a very good movie. I'm more okay with Blade because the explanation is simple and seems to make sense. His vampire side gives him all the powers of vampires, but his human side means he gets none of the weaknesses, except for the thirst. As far as the aging process goes I'm not sure how fast he reached "maturity" or how fast (or slow) he's aging as an adult, if at all. I don't remember it being mentioned in any of the movies. It may have come up in the first, but it's been a while since I've seen it so forgive me. In any event, it's not something that was made into an entire subplot the way it is in Twilight. Out of sight, out of mind.

[Palooza]

The Master is fucking brilliant. Freddy Quell is one of the greatest characters in cinematic history.