Be afraid of the dark. Be very, very afraid.

The H-Bomb: As it’s been well documented on this site, I am a (not so) closeted horror fanboy, and over the course of the last decade, one emerging genre director who’s really caught my eye is Brad Anderson. I rented his film “Session 9” years ago with no expectations for it, and wound up being genuinely impressed with its creepy little story about the strange things that happen to a HazMat team working in a gigantic, abandoned insane asylum. His next one, “The Machinist”, the one that Christian Bale famously lost about 100 pounds for, was yet another well crafted, psychological horror thriller. Then came “Transsiberian”, which was more of a mystery/suspense movie, but I ultimately came to enjoy it just as much as Anderson’s prior films.

So being a fan of this underrated director, I went into his new film, “Vanishing on 7th Street”, with anticipation, despite reading some rather negative reviews online. Having now seen it, I’ll agree that it’s not nearly as strong as his earlier work, but I don’t think that it deserves to be crapped on nearly as much as it has been. Like his previous movies, this is a slow-burner that is more about creating a spooky atmosphere and gradually creeping its way under the audience’s skin than it is about spraying blood and guts all over the place.

The film kicks off with a mysterious blackout in Detroit. All the power just goes dead, like an EMP attack. Except, most of the people vanished with the lights, and all that’s left of them is their clothing, watches, dentures, ect. (an element stolen directly from Stephen King’s “The Langoliers”). Among the very few left behind are Luke (Hayden Christensen), a local news reporter, Rosemary (Thandie Newton), a mother whose child vanished during the blackout, Paul (John Leguizamo), a movie theater projectionist/bookworm, and James (Jacob Latimore), a young kid whose mother went to a church for help and never came back.

These characters end up at a bar that has its own power generator and come to realize that it’s the darkness, the shadows themselves, that is the threat, and that the best way to stay alive is to stay near a light source and out of the dark. While they try to figure an escape from this seemingly inescapable situation, they argue amongst themselves about what is happening. Could it be aliens conducting an experiment? Or some freak natural occurrence? Or perhaps the Rapture itself (if you’re unfamiliar with what this is, consult your nearest Jesus freak)?

One of the most basic fears of mankind is the fear of the dark. And why do we naturally fear the dark? Well, basically for the same reason we don’t fear a brightly lit room. Because we fear what we don’t know, or what we can’t see clearly. In the pitch dark, there’s always the possibility of some unknown, unseen threat that can get us. Many complained (POSSIBLE SPOILER) that the specific danger, or what exactly is going on in the shadows, is never definitively explained. But I think that’s the whole idea behind the film. First, the characters in this predicament would never get enough information to figure out for certain what is happening, and second, I think the film’s whole point is to play on the idea that the darkness itself, and the not knowing of what is there and the vague threat that it represents, is the real villain.

The film does make clear that whatever is in the darkness is of intelligent design, by constantly having horrible screams and sinister whispers coming from within it. The darkness will even lure victims in by imitating the voices of loved ones. All of this made the film effectively spooky. Spooky… but never truly scary, as the film does wear out this gimmick and becomes a bit tedious in the mid-section, where not a whole lot happens aside from flashbacks and the characters fighting amongst themselves about what‘s going on and what to do about it.

It doesn’t help that the acting isn’t as stellar as it was in Anderson’s previous films. Instead of Christian Bale, he’s saddled with Hayden Christiansen, a ho-hum actor at best, whose performance ranges from passable to giggle inducing (mostly when he has to show “big emotion”). The fact that his character is mostly an unlikable ass-hat is also a hindrance.  Thandie Newton fairs a little better as she is believably desperate in trying to find her son, however, she is a tad dull, and I didn’t really care much about her or what happened to her son (though this somewhat makes up for her embarrassing performance as Condi Rice in Oliver Stone’s “W”). The best turn comes from Leguizamo, who brings a sympathetic charisma to his role that everyone else lacks. He was the only one who seemed like an actual, fleshed out human being to me.

If there was one aspect I would fault the most, it would be the script by Anthony Jaswinski. As others have pointed out, the screenplay has a very “Twilight Zone”-ish feel to it, but lacks the irony and philosophical content of that show. Some have also likened this to the sort of thing that M. Night Shyamalan would write, and yeah, I definitely see some similarities, though I would counter that it‘s not nearly as pretentious or flat out stupid as the bulk of Shyamaladingdong’s scripts.

The CGI shadows are a mixed bag. Sometimes, when they’re creeping towards a person, it’s effective. Other times, it looks laughably hokey. CGI seems like a common complaint these days, but when it’s done badly, it just pulls me out of the film, therefore it deserves my reprimand. Either do it well, or don’t do it at all, damn it! But I digress…

When all is said and done, I definitely place this at the bottom of Anderson’s filmography (I never saw the two rom-coms he made before switching to horror), but it was enjoyable for the most part. It was a nicely eerie and fairly original horror flick that plays on one of our darkest fears (sorry). If you can forgive story lulls and Hayden Christensen’s more questionable moments, then I’d say give this a rent for sure… that is, as long as you’re not afraid of the dark.

When I first heard that the fourth installment of “Pirates of the Caribbean” is over two hours, I was non-plussed, having never really been a fan of the series and finding the movies average at best. However I found the 140 minute film to move rather quickly and was nonetheless entertained by the adventure, action, and comedy.

The film opens in Spain, where a man who has been pulled from a fishing net clutches a journal he claims contains a map to the Fountain of Youth. The British get wind of this discovery and immediately pull a crew together to recover it led by none other than Captain Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), Captain Jack Sparrow’s arch nemesis, now sporting a powdered wig, a wooden leg, and new digs.

Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) is in London to hire a crew for a new expedition. But when he finds out that someone has usurped his name and reputation, he’s rather upset. It turns out to be a woman with a grudge from his past, Angelica (Penelope Cruz), the daughter of Blackbeard (Ian McShane), and Jack is forced to board the ship Queen Anne’s Revenge to help Blackbeard find the Fountain first to overturn a prophesy of Blackbeard’s early demise. Try as they might (and they did try) there is little chemistry between Cruz and Depp. The flirtatious banter between the two was disappointing, but Cruz easily replaced Kiera Knightley as the nautically minded female lead and also managed to make Jack Sparrow no longer sexually ambivalent. This was hardly a high seas adventure, as most of the film takes place on land.

In order for the Fountain of Youth’s water to add years to one’s life, two silver chalices and a tear from a mermaid are needed. The quest for these items, and the location of the Fountain, make up the simple story. The film takes a rather awesome departure from the traditional view of mermaids, as these beauties turn out to be beastly sailor feasting creatures! Probably the coolest scene in the movie is when they attack and bring down an entire ship.

Keith Richards returns as Sparrow’s dad for a brief appearance, and the series is refreshed by new characters, a bible-wielding hunky priest (Sam Claflin), the captured mermaid Serena, and of course Blackbeard and Angelica. Depp is his usual mincing self, and Cruz is Spanish and feisty. The film has all the action, scheming and double crossing you would expect from a “Pirates” movie, and for the fourth in a series, it wasn’t disappointing . . . but it wasn’t exactly thrilling either.

Let the “Plame Games” begin…

The H-Bomb: Unless you’ve been living under a rock the last few years, you know the story: Valerie Plame (played in the film by Naomi Watts) was a CIA Agent who worked in various Middle Eastern counter-terrorist affairs until she was outed in the media by someone in the Bush White House, after her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson (Sean Penn) wrote an op-ed piece calling out the Administration for altering his report about whether or not Saddam purchased uranium from Niger. The film essentially follows the couple before and during the leak of Plame’s identity, as well as the fallout afterwords and the effects it had on their professional lives, as well as their relationship.

I debated internally whether or not I really wanted to review this film, because to me, reviewing politically loaded movies such as this one always ends up on that slippery slope. Aside from my personal discomfort in openly discussing my own political views, I know I will inevitably piss off people, no matter which side of an “agenda movie” I come down on. So, for this review, I shall do my damnedest to keep whatever political baggage I may, or may not, have concerning the subject matter, at bay and judge the film objectively on it’s own dramatic merits.

That said, “Fair Game” (not to be confused with that God awful Billy Baldwin/Cindy Crawford movie from the 90′s), which just hit DVD this past week, is a very solid, impeccably acted film that intelligently covers a number of still topical and rather disturbing events from our recent history. Based on books by both Plame and Wilson, the film makes no bones that it is definitely in their corner, but it doesn’t really come across as being overly preachy or heavy-handed. Yeah, the Bush Administration is not exactly shown in a flattering light (Scooter Libby is depicted as a real mustache twirler), but the movie seems far more interested in showing how the characters cope with the chain of events than it does in beating us over the head with any kind of political message.

Again, both Watts and Penn, in their third film together (following “21 Grams” and “The Assassination of Richard Nixon”), are undeniably terrific. Watts plays Plame as a woman of quiet dignity, dedicated to both her job and her family. She comes across as a non-partisan professional committed to serving her country, and she makes us feel her astonishment and loss of faith when she learns that she was outed over something as petty as a political reprisal.

As her hubby Wilson, Penn plays Plame’s polar opposite. He’s hot-headed, opinionated, and has absolutely zero qualms about expressing his opinions, especially when he has a hefty dose of liquor in him. He also comes off as being far less saintly than Plame. Once the fit hits the shan with his wife, he seems just a little too eager to go out and soak up the spotlight, thus making himself look less like a virtuous whistle blower and more like an attention whoring blowhard. I honestly believe that both the leads delivered award caliber performances. To me, they both became the real life people they’re portraying… it’s just too bad they were completely over-looked this awards season.

The film was directed, as it’s been advertised, by “The Bourne Identity” director, Doug Liman. He gives the movie a quasi-documentary look and feel, and for the most part, it works. It’s a true life thinking man’s thriller along the same lines of… say, “All the President’s Men”, although I don’t feel it’s on the same level. While “Fair Game” held my attention, it never really gripped me. Maybe it’s that the events covered are only so compelling, maybe it’s that for the most part I felt like I was only being told one side of the story, I can’t quite say. I just know that I didn’t find it to be as engaging as I felt it could have been.

So, even though I think it could have been better, I do feel that it’s a fairly decent film; no more, no less. If you’re of the liberal persuasion, you’ll find many of your feelings on the topic reinforced. If you’re a conservative and believe that Plame and Wilson were just a couple of phonies playing victims, then I would suggest setting your politics aside and try to appreciate the human drama on display. Regardless of what your stance is, I do believe that “Fair Game” is worth two hours of your time.

Cheese sandwich anyone?

Swift shot: This one almost ended up in “The Bin” section, but I wanted to give it a little more prime-time exposure.  Still this would be more than adequate “Booty” for several reasons.  I had actually already seen this flick, back in 2000, and I admit I only watched it back then because it had Famke Janssen and “Sex” in the title.  It’s a great find though, as far as romcoms go, this is a keeper for most who prefer the genre.   The dialog was fun and the script needs little mending, plus Adam Rifkin recommended it, so who am I to argue with him?

Love & Sex appears as this typical Hollywood romantic comedy with slight moments of serious squirted onto the canvas, because life isn’t all kittens and sunshine.  But, in actuality, it is the pseudo auto-biography of writer/director, Valerie Breiman, whose “Kate” character is perfectly portrayed by leggy Nederlander, Janssen.  Her character, on paper, is just as much fun on screen.  Kate, err, Valerie, oh, we’ll just stick with Kate for now, starts off letting the audience know about her first love, a kid in her class who only kissed her behind the tree, because he was one of the cool kids, and to be blunt, she . . . wasn’t.  Anyone who was awkwardly in love should resonate immediately with her strange liaisons, which were quickly ruined (spoiler alert) because her dumb friend blabbed about it to the whole school!

Fast forward a decade or so, and we see the “grown-up” Kate working for a glamour magazine and she has to write fluffy, happy, bunny type stories about love and other bullshit.  Simply put, she loathes it; she is mortified with the sobering fact that, at some point, inevitably, she is going to die.  So, light, airy stuff isn’t exactly her forte, still, she isn’t all German Expressionism 24/7.  See, Kate decides to go out on a limb, after her boss challenges her to put more of herself into the writing, and writes a stylized guide to oral sex, entitled “Blow by Blow”.  From there, you get the feeling this film is going to be slightly raunchy, and guess what, ding ding ding, you are right.  There are scenes with overly sized sexual aides, public displays of affection galore and, yes, a few “sex scenes” – but there is nothing outrageous, unless you count Adam’s art, which perfectly juxtaposes his dialog.

Adam, played by the, at the time, up and coming Jon Favreau, is an artist from Chicago, you only know that because of his awesome leather jacket with the Chicago flag, which he even has his alter-ego wear in one scene which should grant small chuckles.  What I found so interesting about the Adam character is his ability to keep things earnest throughout.  He is entirely deliberate in his dialog, almost like he too knows life is short, and when you see some of his, dare I say, thought-provoking art, you might not believe a sensitive guy is to be found anywhere in there.  He is not necessarily a likeable character at first, because he is so frank and when he sees something he wants, the phrase “all is fair in love and war” comes immediately to mind. Still, I liked him well enough, and the friendship that grows between Adam and Kate is interesting and as I said before, the dialog is good stuff.  I found myself a few times thinking, damn, that was a great line.

If I have to take anything away from the film it is some of the supporting cast looked like they were seriously phoning in some scenes, I won’t name names though, because I am such a nice guy.  But, when you see these kinds of scenes it really detracts from the overall piece and the film becomes just a story and not something you are emotionally involved with. A few scenes felt tacked on in the middle, but, I guess sometimes life has moments, hell days, like that, and you find yourself searching for an internal fast forward button.

For the genre, you can’t avoid this one.  The characters are fun to watch on screen, the script is not dull, save for a few parts, and the acting by the leads is genuine.

Tonight is about doing; thinking is over-rated!

Swift Shot: Decent trip down memory lane, this is a good renter with all your old buddies who will get all the references to 1980′s flicks, but this won’t be enough to keep the film interesting.  I laughed quite a bit, but the tacked together feel of the story and transitions made me painfully aware I was in the theater and not immersed in the story.

I set the bar high for this flick, and it didn’t quite reach my expectations, I wanted more from the peripheral characters and I wanted to laugh a lot more.  Plus, a lot of the film had this rushed feel to it.  Also, on the controversial issue of the film’s release being delayed four years; I don’t mind seeing people degrade themselves to the point of stupidity, and hey, this is a film set in the 80s, so not showing a few characters experimenting with cocaine and larceny would feel false somehow.

What annoyed me was that I wanted to see less trite, one-dimensional, characters supporting the lead, Matt Franklin (Topher Grace).  The Matt character was interesting, as he is faced with a second chance to win the affections of his high-school crush, Tori Frederking played by the “choicest” of young hotties, Teresa Palmer.  Matt, who graduated from M.I.T., is still working for Suncoast Video, and he was supposed to be the brainiest kid in his high-school. So when Tori happens upon him at the video store, he lies about his station and says he works for Goldman Sachs . . . in fact he doesn’t even own the video store, because he is afraid of everything, really afraid to try anything.  Yet, when it comes to Tori, this time anyway, he finds a pair and lies to her about his job . . . bad idea.

I had to suspend some disbelief that a guy donning the M.I.T. cap and gown would be so reticent to try new things, but, hey, I went along for the ride and tried to just enjoy the film.  So, moments after she learns about Matt’s position at Goldman Sachs, Tori invites him to an annual party being thrown at overtly stereotyped 80′s rich-kid, Kyle Masterson’s house.

I found myself oddly identifying with the Kyle character, played by Chris Pratt who really put his essence into the role, he literally leaves nothing stuffed up in one scene in particular.  But, where a lot of these rich-kids play the villain, Kyle actually plays a surprising victim, a victim of his lack of intelligence.  He has one story that he repeats seventeen times throughout the movie, by the third time he says it, you won’t be laughing . . . neither does his girlfriend, Matt’s sister, Wendy who is played by the deliciously, devilish Anna Faris.  It seems they wanted to make the Wendy character have a more pivotal plot-line than necessary, and a lot of the external characters had an almost cartoonish presence in the story, especially Michael Ian Black as Tori’s groping boss, Pete Bering.

Dan Folger stars as Matt’s best pal, Barry Nathan, a perpetual loser, who seems to be a card carrying member of the Murphy’s Law club – all his decisions up to this night have been wrong – and tonight is no exception.  He opted out of college to work for a luxury car dealership, to always peddle what he will never obtain.  Eventually, his poor decisions lead to the inevitable as he is fired for generally being a schmuck!  When he hears about the party, he decides to steal a luxury car and let Matt roll to the party in style, there is some magical pixie dust in the glove-box, and Barry can’t resist.  You’ll have to watch to see if Matt decides to “let it snow”.

But, the message of Take Me Home Tonight was a good one, albeit a tad dangerous, as Matt’s own father Bill (Michael Biehn) an L.A. cop challenges Matt to do something, ANYTHING that requires risk.  Matt learns many lessons over the night, not the least of which is, do what you love, be who you are and OWN the night!  Again, wait for this one to hit shelves soon and invite some of your 80′s friends over, but don’t be expecting to laugh your ass off, it won’t happen.  Take Me Home Tonight tries to get a little too serious for my taste.  I like my zany comedies to stay that way, if I want a Rom Com, I will put my testicles in a purse and assume the coma position, thanks!

When you are beautiful on the outside, it doesn’t matter what you’re like on the inside, right??  Wrong!!  In “Beastly”, Kyle (Alex Pettyfer) is a handsome and popular student at his private school in New York City.  He cares only about himself.  We later find out that he learned just how much looks matter from his father, whom he barely sees.  When he treats the school’s resident Goth chick Kendra (Mary-Kate Olsen) badly one too many times, she casts a spell on him (yes, she is a witch) that makes him look as ugly on the outside as he is on the inside (this includes odd facial piercings, tattoos, and assorted scars).   He has one year to find true love or else he will stay that way forever.

Poor disfigured Kyle is sent to live just outside the city in a townhouse.  His father promises to visit often, but he keeps cancelling on his son (he’s not a very nice dad).  Instead, he sends Will (Neil Patrick Harris), a blind tutor to keep Kyle current with his studies.  So with only Will and his housekeeper Zola (Lisa Gay Hamilton) for company, Kyle takes to skulking around the city, spying on Lindy (Vanessa Hudgens), a student at his former school whom he had several interactions with prior to his curse.  When Lindy’s father inadvertently puts her life in danger, Kyle makes a deal with her dad to keep her safe.  So she is brought to Kyle’s townhouse to live.  At first, Lindy is angry because she had to leave her friends, her school, and her dream of visiting Machu Picchu (on a school field trip) behind.  Kyle realizes that this is his chance to find the one to declare her love for him, so he sets out to win her affections.  Unfortunately, he didn’t take the time to get to know Lindy, so his expensive presents get him nowhere. It’s not until he brings her a case of her favorite candy that is he able to break the ice.

I don’t want to reveal any more, but if you’ve seen any other version of “Beauty and the Beast” you can probably guess what happens after.

The acting in this movie was good.  There was a fair amount of chemistry between the lead characters.  I especially liked Neil Patrick Harris and Mary-Kate Olsen’s performances.  Michelle Tanner she is no more!!   I thought the makeup people did a good job uglying up Kyle.  At first it was kind of hard to look at him but after a while you get used to it.  I feel this was a good, modern take on the “Beauty and the Beast” tale.  If you believe in magic and the power of love you will enjoy this movie.

“What a twist . . .”

Swift Shot:  All I knew about this film was that it complements “The Social Network” – but really Facebook is only a device to get the story started and ultimately digitally unravelled. Since this was a documentary, and the film-makers were along for the same ride as the audience, it’s hard to judge its content – it wasn’t written – it was revealed.  And the fact that the film-makers don’t know how things are going to play out until the end is what makes this film so interesting.

“Catfish” is about the old internet question, how do you know if who you know is who you know, you know?  It centers around New York based dance photographer, Nev Schulman, whose photos catch the attention of an eight-year old rural Michigan girl, Abby who likes to paint.  Abby contacts Nev to send him a painting of one of his highly publicized photos; of course Nev agrees and an odd professional, artistic relationship develops between the two via Facebook and the occasional painting delivered to Nev’s studio.

Nev is is thrilled with the idea of having a fan who is so young and so driven to create art; she serves as an inspiration to his imagination.  Ultimately, this little girl’s fascination with Nev leads Nev’s brother, Rel Schulman (an aspiring film-maker) to document the relationship that Nev and Abby share.

As Rel films the relationship between the two, things get more interesting as Angela, Abby’s mother, serves as a mediator between the two artists – in fact, Nev has never actually spoken to Abby . . .  she is only a little girl and her mother does most of the talking, and the negotiating, for Abby’s artwork to be ordered and sold.  But, Angela has another daughter, a much older daughter, Megan, who is Abby’s half-sister and is gorgeous, according to her Facebook profile.  It’s Megan who captures more than Nev’s artistic, philanthropic side, and Nev finally works up the nerve to call her on the phone.

A long-distance relationship starts to develop with Megan and Nev constantly talking on the cell-phone, via Facebook, and even sharing songs that Megan’s brother has recorded for Nev.  Something doesn’t seem quite right, and Nev does a Google search of the supposedly freshly written song – here is where the film starts to get interesting, as Nev and Rel digitally dissect Megan and learn she is full of lies.

Rather than ending all communications with Abby, Angela, Megan, or any of them, Rel cajoles, bullies, and pesters his brother to keep the line of communication open and to play the thing out, to see just how much about Megan is deceit and how much is truth.  Now, you know something is going to happen, but you don’t know, is this a horror film, a film about international email fraud, aliens, monsters, it could be anything really.  And when the truth is finally revealed, you’ll sit back and take an internal emotional inventory on all your friends, co-workers, even enemies and wonder what kinds of secrets they might be hiding.

The payoff in the film is what makes it so compelling and I am not going to give anything away – it’s tough not to, because so much happens with the reveal that really makes this film engaging, the build-up to the payoff isn’t that exciting.  But, unlike a scripted “twist”, we are given a chance to appreciate how life can sometimes be more disturbing  than fiction.  I would recommend this one to people who like to think, people who like to be involved in a film, that don’t need constant Michael Bay like action or Oliver Stone surrealism to keep your attention.  This one will surprise you, and maybe it is worth a viewing for that reason alone.

Reviewed by Alyn Darnay

Directed by Dennis Dugan.

Starring: Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Brooklyn Decker, Nicole Kidman, Dave Matthews.

For better or worse, I’m an Adam Sandler fan. I just enjoy his laid back shtick and the way he attacks his material. He knows what’s good for him as an actor and stays within two distinct ranges in his films. You’ll find him acting either edgy and brave (Funny People, Punch Drunk Love) or playing the complacent loner living in his own world (Billy Madison, The Waterboy).

In “Just Go With It”, we find the latter; he’s a middle-aged man/boy wrestling with the dangers of emotional commitment. However, don’t get the idea that this is a film of great depth and substance, remember it’s an Adam Sandler film, it’s simply a light diversion into silly comedy and romance. A minor attempt to lighten your mood and deliver a few inspired laughs, and by the end of the film that’s exactly what you get.

Loosely based on the 1969 comedy “Cactus Flower”, “Just Go With It” is the story of Danny Maccabee, a freewheeling playboy doctor (Sandler), who seduces and then keeps women at arms length by pretending to be married. When he finally meets the woman he does want to marry (‘Sports Illustrated’ model Decker), circumstances force him to lie his way into the relationship with the help of his down-to-earth assistant (Aniston) and her two precocious children.

Surprisingly, Sandler and Aniston are great together, and the scenes where they go at each other as a make-believe bickering divorcing couple are excruciatingly delightful. Watching them paint each other into a corner with a barrage of escalating lies is just plain fun, and later when they are forced to declare their likes of one another, you can really believe they are falling in love.

The other characters, like Danny’s insipid cousin (Nick Swardson), the irritating yet lovable children, and a decidedly unfunny Nicole Kidman add nothing to the proceedings, but at least they don’t take away anything either.

“Just Go With It” is a respectable Valentine’s Day date film. You should find just enough laughs and romance to satisfy.

Let the mayhem begin…

The H-Bomb: Jason Statham does what Jason Statham does best in this latest entry from the Hollywood action movie factory. Here, Statham plays Arthur, a professional killer of the quiet, cold blooded variety. He specializes in assassinations that are either set up to look like accidents, or to point the guilt in another direction. To him, killing is entirely dispassionate and impersonal.

The closest thing he has to a friend is his contact and mentor, the wheelchair bound Harry (Donald Sutherland). One day, Arthur receives orders to kill Harry. He of course has his hesitations about it, but after checking with his big boss, Dean (Tony Goldwin), Arthur grudgingly carries out the hit.

Not long after, Arthur runs into Harry’s son, Steve (Ben Foster), an alcoholic ne’er-do-well with a mean violent streak. Despite statements to the contrary, Steve did care about his father and has a strong desire to avenge his death. Arthur lets his guilt trip get the better of him as he decides to take Steve under his wing and show him the ropes of his less than respectable profession, despite the fact that Steve is clearly an unhinged, ticking time bomb.

Arthur brings him in on his latest job and lets him take the reigns. He instructs Steve precisely on how to kill his target cleanly, instructions that Steve deliberately ignores in favor of a bloody, messy kill. An exceptionally messy kill that should’ve clued Arthur into the fact that he can’t control this kid. But, he continues to train him and take him on other assignments nonetheless.

Eventually, Arthur realizes that the organization he works for set him up to kill Harry, and is gunning for him next. And what, pray tell, would happen if Steve, the temperamental fellow that he is, ever found out that Arthur was the one who pulled the trigger on his old man?

But enough about the plot, which is a shitload of whatever, anyway. We’re here for the gunfights, the fistfights, the explosions, and the blood spatter, which this movie provides in spades. From what I hear, “The Mechanic” is a remake of a 1970’s Charlie Bronson flick of the same name. While I’ve never seen that film, I think it’s safe to say that this one goes a lot heavier on the pyrotechnics and carnage.

While there’s very little to distinguish this movie from others of its ilk, I will confess that it totally delivers what it’s supposed to deliver. The action we’re treated to is raw, visceral, and bloody as a douche. A couple of scenes that stood out for me were a would-be gay tryst turned bedroom brawl, and a totally fucking brutal display of fisticuffs on board an airport shuttle. Oh, then there’s the scene involving a hand in a garbage disposal… ah, but I won’t give that one away.

As I’ve said in other reviews, we’re living in an era where most action movies are pussified, bloodless, nutless, dickless PG-13 pieces of shit, and because of that, a movie like this one should be all the more appreciated. My hat goes off to Simon West, a director who’s done fuck all for me in the past, for creating a bat-shit crazy thrill ride that doesn’t skimp on the gruesome details. He may have bored the crap out of me with “Con Air” and “Tomb Raider”, but he made up for it by delivering a tight story with some wildly inventive, in your face gun-play as a cherry on top.

As for the cast… like I stated earlier, Jason Statham does what he does best, a kind of scruffy, poor man’s James Bond thing, and he is about as badass as badasses come. Solid shit, as usual. The real standout, though, is Ben Foster. Anyone who has seen “Alpha Dog” or “The Messenger” will tell you this guy is one hell of an actor. On one hand, he has this natural, manic intensity to him. On the other, there’s a real vulnerability I sensed about him, and I think he probably made his character much deeper than he ever was in the script. This dude is gonna win an Oscar one day, mark my motherfuckin’ words.

Donald Sutherland comes in like the veteran that he is and makes the most of his few minutes on screen. I actually gave a crap when he died, that’s what a great actor can do with a short role. The only character I was disappointed in was the main villain, Dean. Now, I thought Tony Goldwyn did fine in the role, it’s just the character was a bit of a letdown. He’s a sneering, tailored suit wearing, mamby-pamby bad guy who talks tough when he’s surrounded by twenty heavily armed bodyguards, but face him one-on-one, he turns into a total fucking jelly-spined bitch boy. A more formidable foe our heroes could have used.

Sadly, there’s no real novelty to “The Mechanic”, but… I had a fuckin’ good time watching it. It’s fast paced, shamelessly violent, and entertaining in a kind of guilty pleasure sort of way… but, nothing exceptional. If you’re an action junkie, then by all means, drop ten bucks and get your fix. As for everyone else… this is a renter.