Moneyball

"This is where you talk about Moneyball. You liked it."

Those two sentences have been sitting in my "drafts" folder in this blog for roughly the past 15 hours. Usually I write the entry immediately after seeing the movie, so that it's fresh in my mind. But last night, after the credits rolled, and I watched some behind-the-scenes extras on the Blu-Ray...that's all I could type, and after a while I realized I wasn't going to be able to write anything more that night. So I went to bed. It was late anyways, and my sleep schedule is hilariously whacked out. I didn't need to be up until 4:30 AM again.

I found it really hard to write anything because I found it really hard to be funny about "Moneyball." It's a lot easier to make fun of a bad movie than a good one, most of the time, and "Moneyball" definitely qualifies. It's rock-solid. And I liked it, so I guess it's time for my "serious face" to come out.

Knowing nothing about the events that "Moneyball" covers, the only background I can give is what the movie told me, so for anyone who is a die-hard baseball fan, forgive any ignorance in the following paragraphs. "Moneyball" is the true story of Billy Beane, who was the GM of the Oakland A's in the early 2000's. Along with a Yale-educated economics major, Peter Brand (which wasn't the real guys name) they broke down the scouting of new players into a numbers game, assigning a value to every player based on how beneficial they are to scoring runs. Personality doesn't count, history doesn't count, age doesn't count, looks don't count, nothing but the numbers count.

It sounds like a "duh" idea but this was revolutionary, and flew in the face of over 100 years of baseball tradition, and it really was an ostentatious notion to a lot of people. For years baseball scouts had looked at potential players and rated them on things like their personality, looks, and what was perceived as their potential, what they could be instead of what they were, and it was more of a "gut feeling" than a hard science. This meant a lot of potential fell through the cracks because someone "pitched funny" or something, even though they were performing really well. But here comes Billy Beane saying "Everyone is baseball has been dead wrong about scouting since the beginning."

So the Oakland A's, who had a miniscule budget, had to assemble a rag-tag team of outcasts and throw-offs that nobody else wanted, but the formula said they were winners. And to everyone's shock, the formula worked. The A's set an MLB record by winning 20 games in a row, something never done before, and ended up winning just as many games as the Yankees...with a third of their budget. And baseball was never the same, because now, everybody uses this system.

What was interesting to me with "Moneyball" is that I'm not quite sure how we as the audience are supposed to feel about Billy Beane. Obviously, we are meant to root for him and the A's, but at the same time the man is changing everything. Him and Brand seem to be taking the soul out of a the process of baseball, and implementing a very cold, mathematical formula that treats people like numbers. But by the end, I don't think it really comes down on one side or the other. I think the only real opinion the movie puts out regarding the state of baseball is "screw the Yankees." And I can get behind that.

I know that comparisons to other sports movies are inevitable, and yeah, maybe there is something to comparing "Moneyball" to "Rocky" or "Rudy," considering that it's about a guy overcoming insurmountable odds in sports to prove his life is worth something. Huh. That's kind of sad when you look at it that way. Anyways. It even has a "Mighty Ducks" vibe, not in terms of film-making but in terms of "fist-pumping in the air after the wimpy kid finally knocks one out of the park." Dare I say, it may even have some "Cool Runnings" in it, what with the idea "it's not about winning, but what you prove to yourself" ideology at the end.

From a technical standpoint, it's a beautiful film. The baseball scenes are wonderfully shot and edited together with what appears to be actual footage from the games, although those could be recreations. The sound design is also very nice. When they want you to feel the hit of a bat, man do you feel it. The *crack* that comes off that thing is crazy well done, and works to give intense moments in the game that extra "oomph" that almost gets you half-way standing up, craning your neck to see if that sucker is long gone. It's like baseball without all the boring parts!

It's pretty clear from the beginning that this movie was groomed for an Oscar or five. First of all, it has Philip Seymor Hoffman in it, which is just coming right out and saying INSERT OSCAR HERE. I don't know what it is, but man, the Academy loves that pasty tub of mumbling dough. Second, It was directed by Bennett Miller, who did the not-too-bad-but-kind-of-dull Oscar winner "Capote," and finally, it was co-written by Aaron Sorkin, which is basically guaranteeing you at least get a Best Picture nomination, especially after the inexcusable ass-kissing "The Social Network" received at last years awards.

Does "Moneyball" deserve it? Well, I'd say it's a hell of a lot better than "The Social Network" for starters. That's not even a contest. So I guess I'll say that if "The Social Network" won three Oscars, "Moneyball" is worth at least that. But then again, who says these things are fair? To that end, who says they even matter? (They don't.) I'm just surprised that I like a movie so much that was clearly Oscar bait. That's usually a sign that I'll hate it.

But one thing we can all agree on, whether you like the movie or not, whether you think it deserves some Oscars, whether you like baseball or not, whether you're a human being or not...

Screw the Yankees.

BOTTOM LINE - It may be Oscar bait, but it's damn fine Oscar bait. To my pleasant surprise: Highly Recommended.

Hostile Waters (1997)

I love bargain bin movies. Well, sometimes. Sometimes they can bite you square in the ass with a "you get what you paid for, and you paid 49 cents for me" situation, but sometimes you get lucky. I was lucky enough to recently come across a whole bunch of cheap movies at a local game store that also sold previously owned DVDs for a reasonable price. Now, I'm not expecting these to be good, but I had a feeling that they wouldn't hurt me too badly. Two of them happened to be Rutger Hauer films, and two of the others looked to be bootlegs of chop-socky flicks from Hong Kong, as well as "Onichanbara: The Live Action Movie." For those uninformed, that is known in the States as "Samurai Bikini Zombie Squad." And yes, they made a movie. Don't worry, I'll get to it eventually.

I had the urge for some Rutger Hauer manliness this evening, so I popped in what was the most grounded-in-reality of the two, "Hostile Waters," a TV movie HBO and the BBC made in good old 1997. The other was "Crossworlds" which looked like Rutger Hauer meets "Sliders," which honestly sounds amazing, but I was in a Tom Clancy mood. I wanted to see how well HBO could rip off "The Hunt For Red October." Oooo, and it's got Martin Sheen! Neato.

I guess the first thing you'd probably ask is: how well does it rip off "The Hunt For Red October?" The answer is "pretty well for a TV movie with I'm guessing a fifth of the budget." Like most submarine movies, most of the action involves a bunch of sweaty guys standing around in a small room with a bunch of flashing lights as they yell orders into a headset, and every once in a while the stage tilts to the left and everyone throws themselves to that side of the room. You know. Sub movies.

I know that's not giving it quite the credit it deserves but let's not kid ourselves, there are only so many things you can do with a submarine movie, and if you've seen one, you've pretty much seen all of them. Just watch "Das Boot" and you've pretty much seen the epitome of it, and everything else is just kind of a retread of that film in a different time period. "The Hunt For Red October" is probably second on the list just because it made the whole "this thing can blow up the universe" aspect popular.

Truthfully, I would still rather watch this any day.

Back to "Hostile Waters," though. The film is the reportedly true story of an incident in the late 80's when an American sub grazed the Russian sub it was tracking. The Russian sub began having buku problems which ended with such fun things as the nuclear warheads threatening to blow up to the reactor threatening to meltdown. It wasn't a good day aboard K-219.

The film touts the fact that it has an all star cast including not only Hauer and Sheen, but also Max Von Sydow. Truthfully, it's really Hauer's show as Sheen, who plays the American sub commander, isn't in it nearly enough for my liking. Of course this makes sense since the drama is unfolding on the Russian sub, and it really doesn't make much sense to focus on the guy who's only job in the film is to agonize over whether or not to pull the trigger and blow the Russian sub up. Pro-Tip: That would make Russia mad. Yeah, that's good drama, but Hauer has the more interesting and intense of the two stories.

Max Von Sydow is barely in it enough to qualify. He probably filmed his scenes on his lunch break. It's like Donald Sutherland in "Horrible Bosses" or Richard Dreyfus in "Piranha." They're in those movies for like a minute and a half. Or Christopher Lee in Tim Burton's version of "Sleepy Hollow," where his part in the movie is literally done before his name shows up in the opening credits! Von Sydow is in it for a bit longer than that, but it really could have been anyone.

A more notable cameo role that I geeked out over was Dominic Monaghan as one of the Russian sailors. That's right, Meridoc Brandybuck himself is in this movie, and it was actually his first film role. The dude only has like 2 lines, tops, but he's a heavily featured extra. Hell, they give him a lot of screen time for a dude in his first movie, including some emotional closeups. I guess props to the filmmakers for spotting talent.

"If I die, what will happen to me band? Driveshaft, by the way. Maybe you've heard of us?"

Of course, at the end of the day what makes or breaks the movie is going to be Rutger himself. I suppose if you don't like him, it's not going to work for you, but I think he's pretty good. But one can not look at this performance and not compare it to Sean Connery. Both of them are playing Russian sub skippers, both of them are being pursued by Americans, both get in really big trouble which threatens nuclear war, and neither one gave the slightest attempt at an accent of any kind. Now for Sean Connery, it kind of works because he is, in fact, the Supreme Badass of the Multiverse, and like the great Craig Ferguson once said of him, he's not an actor, he's a movie star! Rutger doesn't have that privilege of getting away with that, so it's a bit more noticeable, but by the end, it really doesn't matter. At least he doesn't half ass it with a bad accent. He just doesn't try, which is probably a smarter move.

Even if you're just waiting for Sean to storm in at any moment and yell, "Shun, you call that a mushtash? It looksh like a wee rat with irritable bowelsh!"

"What? Moments lost in time? Tears in rain? Listen, I don't have time for this. Sean Connery is here and he's insulting my facial hair. No, I have no idea how he got on the ship, he's magic or some crap..."

BOTTOM LINE - If you've seen one submarine movie before, particularly "The Hunt For Red October," this will seem very, very familiar territory. However, it's still a decent flick with some pretty good tension going on. Give it a try if you can get it for cheap.

The Secret (2007)

Some day I'm going to make a movie and cast David Duchovny in it. It's going to be about the most mundane things imaginable going on all around him, and he will be left without cause to suspect any kind of paranormal goings-on, though he will try hard to find them, because he's Duchovny, and that's how he rolls. Meanwhile, his poor roommate will have to just sit there and take it like a chump while contemplating how best to stick either his or David's head into a waffle iron. Either way would work, just so long as the suffering ENDS.

"Have you noticed how you can't tell if the refrigerator light turns off when you close the door?"
"Actually, Dave, if you close it most of the way-"
"Carvings in Mayan ruins in South America have been found which tell of spirits which reside inside cool, dank caves, not unlike modern day refrigerators. They were able to live off of the light of torches unwary travelers brought with them into their lairs."
"Dave, I don't think that's-"
"I know it's crazy, but just listen, what if one of these...spirits was able to find its way into our little town here, wouldn't they naturally be attracted to a refrigerator so much like their natural habitat? I think what we're dealing with here is an entity that doesn't know it's not home."
"DUDE. IF YOU CLOSE THE DOOR ALMOST ALL THE WAY YOU CAN SEE THE LIGHT TURN OFF."
"Oh. Well, did you know Code Black government agencies have been known to put surveillance equipment in light bulbs such as a refrigerator light?"
"Can I please just make my sandwich?"

Seems legit.

I kid. I kid because I love.

Seriously, though, I really like David Duchovny a lot. I was a big fan of the "X-Files" and pretty much anything I've seen Duchovny in. And yes, that includes "Evolution" which was frigging awesome. What can I say? The guy is just really likeable, although like I made fun of earlier, it can be difficult at times to separate him from Fox Mulder, as much as we may try.

What I haven't seen Duchovny do a lot of is drama. Even in more serious stuff he typically is the guy with the smart-ass remark that gets a chuckle out of you. So I was intrigued going into "The Secret" since I really didn't know what to expect, except that based on the cover, it probably wasn't going to be full of "Spooky's" trademark dry witticisms.

And I was correct, "The Secret" was played pretty straight on all fronts, and it was nice to know that David Duchovny can play a good serious role, and play it damn well. And that is fortunate for the film because the plot is something that could very easily become ridiculous. And it wasn't until later in the movie that I realized why that was: it's a serious version of "Freaky Friday."

The idea is that Duchovny's wife (played by Lili Taylor. Anyone remember her from "Ransom?" Nobody? Huh.) and daughter are in a car accident. At the hospital, both of them flat-line at the same time. The doctors fight to bring both of them back, but only the daughter makes it. Or does she? It's kind of 50/50 because when she wakes up, it's the mother's spirit inside her. So the wife is going around in her 16-year old daughter's body flipping out because of obvious reasons. Meanwhile Duchovny is torn between thinking his daughter has lost her freaking mind and struggling with his inner need to open an X-File on her. (You may say it's because his daughter is acting exactly like his wife and is spewing stuff out of her mouth that she has no business/way of ever knowing, but I like to think my version is the right one.)

So yeah, it's pretty close to "Freaky Friday," except that you know eventually one of them is going to have to go. There's no body left for mom to switch back to, and besides, it's not like a fortune cookie did it. It's just one of those things that is never really explained, so there's no answers. All that there is left to do is for the mom to start living her daughter's life for her - "keeping it warm till she gets back" as it were. And of course, she starts finding out all kinds of things that mothers probably would rather not find out about their daughters. ("Who is Justin and why is his name tattooed on my ass?!")

The daughter is played by Olivia Thirlby, who you may have seen as the best friend in "Juno" and will be in the upcoming remake of "Judge Dredd" (nice). I gotta say, she does a very respectable job playing both a snotty, nihilistic teenager and a weary, freaked out 36-year old. But I was also constantly amazed how much she looks like Kristin Stewart, only with talent and an attractive face. It's like looking into a parallel dimension or something. It's wild, I tell ya.

She is protected from vampires by her non-stoner eyes and lack of stammering awkwardly.

There is a sticking point for this movie, however, and truth be told, it does get a little uncomfortable at points. This would be the scenes when Duchovny and the wife (in her daughter's body) are obviously struggling with really, really wanting to have sex. That brings up so many levels of creepy and wrong and "eww gross" that it staggers the imagination. It doesn't help that the mom seems to be all into it, as shown with the line:

"You've got a 36 year old wife in the perfect body of a 16 year old. I'm every man's wet dream."

Oh wow. That's like...Rule 34 level nasty right there. I feel like the FBI is about to bust my door down any moment just for hearing that. (Don't worry, they don't actually do anything. This isn't Arkansas.)

The end of the film may not leave a fantastic taste in the audience's mouth, in fact it seems like it ends about 10 minutes too early, but at the end of the day, it was a pretty good drama with a pretty good cast. Although the subject matter got a little goofy, a couple plot threads got dropped midway, and it maybe didn't make a whole lot of sense all the time, overall it was well done.

Even if it could have been shrunk down into an "X-Files" episode.

"Mulder, what's that?" "My career, Scully. I can't escape it."

BOTTOM LINE - A decent drama that does things a little different. Not for everyone, perhaps, although some good conversations about what constitutes incest would probably be had after the movie.

Shark Night

The thing I've never really liked about slasher movies is that I've never been able to wrap my head around rooting for the villain. I think that you should like the accused protagonists and not want to see them horribly butchered. But if the characters are just annoying turds that you want to see die as quickly as possible, then it's not a scary movie, because there is no sense of tension or dread. You WANT the deaths to happen, which is opposite of the way horror should work. And that illustrates my biggest issue which slasher movies: they are considered horror films. They're not. They're Looney Toons without the "funny-ha-ha."

All I'm saying is that if movies like "Friday the 13th," "Sleepaway Camp," the "Halloween" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" sequels, and "Piranha" are considered horror, so is "Itchy & Scratchy."

Can you feel the bone-chilling terror?

I actually had a good feeling going into "Shark Night." I thought it might be a fun time. Why? I have no earthly idea. I guess I figured it might be fun and cheesy, something along the lines of "Piranha" except not terrible. Then I saw the four syllables that signal the death blow to almost any horror movie bearing them: PG-13.

Oh my god, this is going to suck.

I hate being right all the time. "Shark Night" did indeed suck, and as much as I hate to say it considering how much I despised the equally terrible "Piranha," at least that movie had the R-rated gore factor which made it interesting. It also had Ving Rhames, which is pretty sweet. "Shark Night" does not have Ving, nor anyone else really. Definitely nobody near as cool as Mr. Rhames. But it did keep one thing from "Piranha": douchbags. Oh do they have douchbags to spare.

That is something that has always and will always kill these freaking movies for me. I hate the characters. Every single one of these movies has a cast of the most annoying jack-offs that they could assemble, and it's like reeds under the fingernails for me every time one of their mouths open up. This movie has redneck inbred hillbillies, beer swilling fratboys, a dude who spray-tans his junk, and-

God help me.

...It's that douchy scientist from "Avatar." Clearly, this will not be fun for me. Do you know what they have this guy do? They have him yell the phrase "I'm on a boat!" when they get on the said vessel headed for their little island getaway. Yeah, that's going to hold up real well in 10 years when nobody remembers that song. Can you imagine watching this in the future when that song has been erased from our collective memory? How weird is that scene going to play out?

[TV] "I'm on a boat!"
::pause::
[You] "Umm...yes. Yes, you are on a boat. Good job. You must have been studying."

Is it going to be like that the whole movie? I'm in a room? I'm on a couch? I'm on the toilet? I have a beer? I've lost my leg? I'm separated from my torso? I'm in shark? Because I gotta be honest, that would be an improvement, and I'd get behind it.

I know I'm being hard on the douchy scientist from "Avatar" guy, but really he wasn't the worst. He was just the easiest target because he's the only person in this movie you've probably seen in anything. Although one of the bad guys looks a hell of a lot like Casper Van Dien, which again, would have improved the movie. It makes me wonder why they didn't just get him. It's not like he's doing anything.

The whole cast is just so stock that I can't even be bothered to remember their names. There was Butt, Tattoos, Spray-Tan, Token Black Guy, Douchy "Avatar" Guy, Commander Sheppard from "Mass Effect," Casper Van Dien, Redneck, and Forehead. Forehead demands a special mention because MY GOD. I thought Christina Ricci had whacked out face proportions, but you could open a ski resort on that thing.

A forehead or the rolling plains of Nebraska? You make the call.

That's really all there is to it. I mean, a bunch of douchbags get eaten by sharks in a PG-13 manor. There is not a single thing in the movie which surprises, except for the fact that it can't even get "sharks eating people" right. The one time it's done halfway decently is the one time they blatantly rip off "Jaws." Go figure.

BOTTOM LINE: A boring, watered-down, PG-13, nut-less, wanna-be shark movie. Don't bother.

Apollo 18

I have been waiting to see this movie for a long time. It was supposed to come out in October of 2010, then it got shoved to early 2011, then fall of 2011. And then, of course, when it finally came out, it only played for like 2 weeks, and I missed the last screening of it. Literally. I had no idea it wasn't going to be showing the next day, and I skipped out on it because I was waiting to see it with someone who flaked out on me anyways. Surprise. And when it finally comes out in December, my store doesn't get it because we're closing. Freaking awesome. So when all is said and done, I have been waiting about a year and a half to see this freaking thing. It better be worth it, right?

Well, obviously the anticipation was high for me, despite the fact that I had heard nothing but really bad things about "Apollo 18." Everyone just tore this movie apart, but I stayed optimistic, generally because most of the people tearing it apart also hated "The Blair Witch Project," which I personally found to be brilliant. I thought it looked like something I could dig, since I think the "found footage" genre can be very effective. Oddly enough, I intensely dislike the "Paranormal Activity" series. Go figure.

"Apollo 18" is the story of the TOP SECRET MISSION of our last time going to the moon. For those of you who don't know your history, there were only 17 Apollo moon missions. There we are told why we never went back to the moon: Moon Crabs. Oh, I'm for real. You don't want to mess with the Moon Crabs. They will give you such a pinch.

"Looking for lifeforms on the moon? Why not Zoidberg?"

When you boil it down, "Apollo 18" really is "Blair Witch Project" on the moon, and that right there is going to be enough to make or break it for you. If you hated "Blair Witch Project," I can't see this working for you. If you liked "Blair Witch Project," well, I'm not going to say you're going to like it, but you've got a good head start.

Me personally? It was...OK. Not the masterpiece I wanted, but what I got was passable. The saving grace really comes from a handful of scenes and shots that are quite unnerving. These include the exploration of a pitch-black crater using a camera flash that works like the world's slowest strobe light (in fact they do this twice), a desperate run to safety that makes you feel out of breath watching it, and some very creepy discoveries on the moon involving stuff that just shouldn't be there.

One thing I wasn't really expecting was the quasi-"X-Files" conspiracy vibe the movie gives out at times, which gets a little silly when you think about it. (*Slight spoiler warning*) Is it ridiculous that the D.O.D. would send astronauts that they've trained for years and spent millions of dollars on up there to die as some kind of guinea pigs? Yeah, it is. But then again, who else are they going to send? Oil drillers? That would just be stupid.

I felt the conspiracy angle was a little ham-fisted, but it really didn't ruin the movie for me. It was more of a "Oh. I guess I should have seen that coming. Of course, why not?" moment. But by the end, the tension has been ratcheted up so much that it really didn't matter. I just wanted to see the dudes get home, and "Apollo 18" did a great job making you feel for the astronauts.

The last 15 minutes of the movie is when it really is at its most alive, as one would expect from the climax of a film. And although the ending will probably tick a lot of people off (the endings of these kinds of movie typically do), it really couldn't have finished any other way and maintained its tone. Because, come on. You knew this wasn't going to end well.

BOTTOM LINE - If you like the "found footage" genre at all, this will probably intrigue you, but it probably won't blow your mind. If you hate this genre, you won't see it anyway.

Don't Be Afraid of The Dark

I like Guillermo Del Toro. I really do. I think he's made some fantastic movies, most notably "Pan's Labyrinth" which was just incredible. That being said, there's a lot of "Guillermo Del Toro Presents" movies out which are not nearly as good as the stuff he puts out himself. Apparently he'll executive produce any kind of half-ass production, but he saves the good stuff for himself. Makes sense I suppose. I suppose in that way he's a lot like Spielberg. Except, you know, Del Toro can still make a good film if he wants to. I think Spielberg has forgotten how, or has become so enamored with himself that you could replace him with a "Spielberg Directing Robot-3000" and not notice too much of a difference. But anyways, that's not what I came to talk about.

"Don't Be Afraid of The Dark" is a "Del Toro Presents" production, and much like "Pan's Labyrinth," it has an air of classic fairy tale told in a dark, disturbing fashion. And like "Pan's Labyrinth" it has a little girl be the focus of the terror as the creatures in the eponymous "Dark" are out to get her. Unlike "Pan's Labyrinth" however, it's not very good. In fact, it was pretty bad.

There needs to be a name for horror movies that try and pass off stuff that isn't scary or just comes off as ridiculous as horror. I'm talking movies like "Paranormal Activity," where pots falling and footsteps down a hallway constitute 90% of the "scares," or "Night of The Lepus" with the giant killer bunnies (look it up) or god help you, "The Happening." Although to be fair "Don't Be Afraid of The Dark" could have used Markie Mark talking to a plastic plant.

"DBAOTD" as I'll call it now to save time, has its problem in the fact that the monsters in it are absurdly stupid. The best way to describe them is...well, just look at them.

Really? That's the effect you all were going for with this? The thing looks like Gollum's bowel movement. It looks like Bib Fortuna after getting his stupid head tails removed. It looks like a squirrel screwed a dust bunny.

And the most absurd part of this is the fact that they are like, 7 inches tall, max. There's no way these things weigh more than 2 lbs. But they're swarming all over people with little pointy objects they've found while the victims flail around like idiots going AAAAH!! WAAAGH! NO! AAAAAH!!

Dude. Step on them. Seriously.

It boggles my mind that they were able to make these things into villains. If they were poisonous that would be one thing. If they were immortal or something that would be one thing. If they could stack together like Voltron or merge into a a huge uber-version of themselves like Station, that would be something. But they don't. They just swarm over people and concoct little devious traps for their victims that all involve tripping them somehow. But then again, how else are they supposed to get them down to their level? Guess they've got me there.

The bottom line is that it just wasn't scary, because it was too stupid. Although it was hilarious seeing one of them lift half of a broken scissor (which was about as big it as it was) over its head while "roaring" in its squeaky little voice like a miniature Uruk-Hai that Saruman made because he was bored. That mess was hilarious, but I don't think I was supposed to have laughed.

But seriously. Lift your foot, and punt that thing through the nearest vestibule. Sit on it. Stick it in a blender. It wouldn't be difficult. The Smurfs could take these guys.

BOTTOM LINE: Laughably stupid on top of being formulaic, but at least it wasn't PG-13.

Fright Night (2011)

It would not be inaccurate to say that I am concerned for the vampire genre. In a way the genre is like an alcoholic that doesn't know that he's made an irredeemable ass of himself, and that the only way to save any sort of dignity is to move out of town, change his name and start over after having attended intense therapy for a few years. And if Anne Rice was the chick at the party who introduced him to Jack Daniels, Stephanie Meyer would be the person who has been tying him to a chair and forcing him to main-line Wild Turkey.

Oh, there have been some diamonds in the rough as of late, to be sure. In what seems like a backlash to the "Twilight" so-called-"saga", there has been a movement of films that treat vampires like the grown-up, responsible unholy monsters of the night that they started out as. Movies like "Priest" and "Daybreakers" gave a unique spin on the mythos with varying degrees of success (the later being supremely better than the former), the Korean film "Thirst" directed by Chan-wook Park was one of the best vampire dramas since Bram Stoker's Dracula, but the prize has to go to the Swedish masterpiece "Let The Right One In" and the shockingly good (some might say better) American version, "Let Me In." These afforded some measure of dignity to a genre that has become a joke of the badass it used to be. Remember "Blade?" Remember "Underworld?" Back in MY day, vampires didn't brood!

D'oh! Never mind...

Having unfortunately never seen the 80's original, I didn't quite know what to expect going into the remake of "Fright Night." I was anticipating something that was lite and fluffy that wasn't taking itself too seriously. And true enough, at the end of the day this did turn out to be more of an entertaining romp than a suspenseful horror flick. But nonetheless, that didn't change the fact that it remained an entertaining romp. And like the aforementioned wave of "we want to be taken seriously again" vampire movies, "Fright Night" does make the monster a threatening presence worthy of the protagonist's fear thanks to some great writing and very solid performances. For that reason, as tacky as it got at times, I would have to put "Fright Night" up there as one of the better vampire movies I've seen lately.

There is a very strong "Lost Boys" vibe to this film. You almost expect the Frog Brothers to step out of the shadows at any time to toss someone some holy water. In fact, the first act is very much "Lost Boys" as Christopher Mintz-Plasse (yes, McLovin is in this movie) attempts to convince our main character Charley, played by Anton Yelchin, that his next door neighbor, Jerry, is a vampire. It plays out much like you'd expect. Charley thinks his friend is nuts and won't listen to him and his eccentric ideas, but we all know he's right. I was anticipating a long, excruciating, drawn out second act, where Charley slowly comes around to believe his friend while the audience face palms every time he dismisses as coincidence damning evidence that Jerry is indeed a creature of darkness, but then something interesting happened. Charley is a full out believer before the end of the first act! Way to get the ball rolling, movie!

In fact, "Fright Night" surprised me on several occasions. It really did go against the norm, and did gutsy things that I was not excepting. Characters get "taken out" when most movies wouldn't dare touch them. And this happens not once but twice, leaving you really wondering if anyone is truly safe in this film. That also adds to the menace that Jerry already has, which is a lot.

That is, of course, due to a rather good performance by Colin Farrell as the vampire. I like Colin Farrell, despite him not having an outstanding track record with the movies he's in. He's a bit like Matthew McConaughey for me in that even if the movie isn't that good, I always find him entertaining. Farrell plays Jerry the way you would hope a vampire would act. He's charming as hell when he needs to be, and scary when his true nature emerges. Let's face it, the dude's rocking a solid 20 Charisma score.

"Looks like Jerry is giving Charley a 'cross examination.'" (YEEEEAAAAAAH!!!)

This all culminates in the best scene in the movie, for me at least, when Jerry is trying to get Charley to invite him in his house. This is after Charley's mind has officially been blown after the proof of Jerry's vampire-nature was revealed to him. (Of course, this begs the question why McLovin didn't show Charley this evidence earlier, but I digress.) The scene reminds me of the interviews Agent Starling has with Hannibal Lector in "The Silence of The Lambs" when he's behind the glass like a wild animal in a zoo, and she only has this near-invisible barrier between her and a monster. Jerry can't enter without being invited in. Jerry knows this, Charley knows this, and not too far into the conversation, Jerry knows that Charley knows this. So Jerry is just standing at the open doorway with this invisible force field keeping him out, while Charley is sweating bullets on the other side. Then it becomes a game of unspoken threats that is very well written, and all the while Farrell is just oozing sleazy evil and you can tell he's just having a ball being a sick bastard.

It would also be amiss for me to not mention the other lead actor in the film, David Tennant. And although most people would probably be stoked to see him simply because of Doctor Who (oh my god shut up shut up I don't care) he does wind up being one of the more memorable characters in the film, despite being ever so slightly underused. His character is what you would get if you took Chris Angel and Russell Brand and turned him into a Van Helsing inspired Las Vegas act who is a vampire hunter who totally doesn't believe but at the same time totally believes. It's a lot to take in, I know, just roll with it. Weird character aside, he was very memorable and quite funny, although it distracted me how much he looks like Martin Sheen circa "Apocalypse Now." What has been seen cannot be unseen. You're welcome.

"Saigon. Shit. I'm still only in Saigon."

So when all is said and done, do I recommend the remake of "Fright Night" to everyone? I'd say so. It was a surprisingly good time, and does enough different and unique things to make it stand out from the masses, including some striking scenes and set pieces, most notably an extended car chase sequence using some fantastic camera work, and a truly horrifying and memorable final confrontation between Farrell and Tennant. And heck, any movie that gets in a good dig on "Twilight" (you just knew it was coming) is doing at least one thing right.

BOTTOM LINE - A darn fun movie that plays out like a modern "Lost Boys." Worth seeing.