Alex Cross

I'm going to start out this review with a few disclaimers.  First of all, I am not a big fan of James Patterson's work as an author, or as the inspiration for movies.  I have also not paid any attention to Tyler Perry's body of work; the only Tyler Perry movie I've seen up to this point is Star Trek.  I don't particularly care one way or the other about the choice to reboot this franchise with a younger star (Morgan Freeman played Alex Cross in Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider).  Having said all that, I have to point out that the movie trailer for Alex Cross looked pretty generic, at best:

Does anyone actually need to be persuaded to leave Detroit?  And while I am not a big fan of the previous Alex Cross movies, I have to say that I preferred the character as someone who out-thinks the bad guys, instead of just another cop on the edge.  Still, maybe that was just the trailer; it seems unlikely that the movie will have a dubstep score, so maybe the movie was just cut to shreds by the people making the movie trailer.

Alex Cross is, not surprisingly, about Alex Cross (Tyler Perry), a Detroit police detective who for some reason is called "doctor" Cross by most people.  I get it, he probably has a psychology degree or something, but that seems like a title that would not trump "detective," at least not when he is a detective.  Cross and his team --- Alex's lifelong friend, Thomas (Edward Burns), and Thomas's girlfriend, Monica (Rachel Nichols) ---are assigned to a violent crime by their Captain (John C. McGinley) because...um...they're the best?  They're next up on the rotation?  I'm not entirely sure.  The crime scene is in a swanky area, and there are four victims; three are bodyguards who appear to have not gotten a shot off, and the fourth is their client, who was tortured to death while wearing lingerie.  Alex gives the scene the once-over and decides, without any evidence that he's willing to share with the audience or his fellow detectives, that this was all the work of one man.  A highly trained and sadistic man, but one man nonetheless.

"Look, I'm just reading a script.  If you want insight, hire a poet"

At the scene, they recover a Cubist-inspired pencil drawing of the dead woman, writhing in pain.  Or maybe she just looks like a normal Cubist portrait.  I'm not an art critic.  Alex notices something odd in the drawing, though, and --- I have to emphasize how odd a choice this is for any sane person --- treats it like a Mad Magaize fold-in, which results in Alex finding a hidden message in the drawing that identifies the killer's next target.  Remarkably, Alex and his team show up at exactly the same time that the killer (Matthew Fox) does, and they prevent him from eliminating his target.

He shouldn't have wasted time rocking out to "Come Sail Away"

Cross realizes that the real target of this crazy killer must be international businessman Leon Mercier (Jean Reno), who employed both targets.  Why the killer needed to kill off two underlings before his primary target doesn't make much sense (wouldn't it just put Mercier on alert?), but we're in Movie Killer Country now, so you have to roll with it.  Little does Alex Cross realize how much he has inconvenienced the killer, and how personal this case is about to become...

So how does Tyler Perry do in his first true attempt at broadening his acting horizons?  Honestly, I was expecting more.  He did a decent Morgan Freeman impression when profiling the killer, but he was pretty unconvincing when he had to show grief or rage.  There's a part where somebody died, and it was because Alex Cross misjudged the situation; the way Perry moans "I was wrong" almost made it seem like he felt worse about being incorrect than the death.  It's not a wretched performance, though --- just extremely bland.  I really liked Matthew Fox's work as the killer, though.  Fox's physical transformation for the role was impressive and I thought he had some great crazy eyes. 

Unfortunately, his character was poorly developed, so Fox was relegated to being kinda creepy instead of definitely disturbing.  Edward Burns was mediocre as Cross' buddy and partner.  His emotional range was pretty limited, but his character seemed to exist only for Alex Cross to prove him wrong, so I have a hard time imagining Burns turning in a magical performance.  I will say that the chemistry between Burns and Perry was not very impressive for a pair that was supposedly best friends since kindergarten.  Rachel Nichols had a role that mainly consisted of her looking attractive, and she delivered; I wouldn't mind seeing her in a role that actually required acting, but she's perfectly adequate here as a pretty cop.   John C. McGinley was a smart casting choice for a stereotypically caustic police chief --- as much as I hate Zach Braff, I have to admit McGinley was funny on Scrubs --- but the execution was butchered.  McGinley's character winds up being not a foul-mouthed, Lethal Weapon-esque boss, but a temperate, ladder-climbing politician.  What a misuse of resources.  Cicely Tyson was fine as Cross' sassy mother in a bit part, as was Carmen Ejogo as Cross' perfect wife.  I was a little disappointed that Jean Reno didn't have more to work with, but he's reaching a point in his career where he simply gets by playing generic Europeans in Hollywood movies.

Correction: slightly bloated Europeans

I'm not sure that Rob Cohen was the right choice to direct Alex Cross.  I'm not going to lie and say that I haven't enjoyed his work in the past --- xXx and The Fast and the Furious are both great movies to drink to --- but he's not the director I would choose for any movie that wanted to have better dialogue than "I live for this shit."  Here's the thing: you don't hire Rob Cohen to direct a movie unless you want it to be filled with dumb action.  Alex Cross has some action, sure, but it's definitely not a dumb action movie.  Even the action it has --- particularly the hand-to-hand scene with Perry and Fox --- is subpar.  It's one thing to have a camera shaking because there is allegedly so much action, but it's another thing entirely to see a lame fight scene and shake the camera to add some spice.  Cohen is incapable of line coaching or editing things together into a cohesive whole, so I can't justify his involvement in this project.  Alex Cross doesn't fit Cohen's strengths, and it emphasized his weaknesses.

Two out of three people are sitting in this action scene

Speaking of weaknesses, I have to address some of the things that irritated me about Alex Cross.  The film opens with Cross chasing a suspect in an abandoned area in Detroit (so...anywhere in Detroit).  The suspect fires at Cross, and the camera cuts to Cross, who dodges the bullet a few seconds later.  Not a good sign when the opening scene can't manage to get the basics of a firefight correct.  Anyway, Cross and his team chase down the perp.  They all congratulate each other on a good day's work, and the next scene has Cross visiting a woman at a prison, trying to convince her to not do jail time for a crime she did not commit. 

"Good work team.  Let's do very different things and zero paperwork in the next few scenes"

The next scene skips ahead almost twenty-four hours and shows Cross being a vaguely affectionate husband, child and parent.  Are there connections between these scenes?  Only Alex Cross as a character.  The initial criminal has nothing to do with the rest of the movie; the woman in prison is referenced as a means to an end toward the end of the film, and Cross' family time does little to develop him as a character.

Another odd choice had the camera follow Matthew Fox around as he planned and executed his crimes.  First of all, it appears that Fox's character (who is dismissively called "Picasso" once in the movie, and yet IMDb lists it has his character's name) is motivated by money.  To that end, it appears that he will kill to fulfill his contract.  Makes sense, right?  His first target is a sexy lady who likes MMA fights.  Naturally, he enters the octagon, acts brutal and attracts her attention.  Just as naturally, she sees a brutal stranger and invites him to her home for sexy time.  

Yes.  Invite this home.  That makes sense.

After he "tortures her to death" (because that's a scientific cause of death, Mr. Police Coroner), Picasso opts to not take anything of value from her home.  In fact, it seems like this character has his own motivations and that the money he received in his first scene was just icing on top.  Too bad nothing about his motivations are ever revealed.  If he was in it for money, why not steal from his victims?  If he was on a mission, why would he get sidetracked with Alex Cross's team?  I don't need to know his life story, but this character could have been great with maybe five more minutes of cohesive development.

The biggest problem with Alex Cross, though, is with how it handles the main character.  If Alex Cross is such a brilliant detective, shouldn't he be right some of the time?  Or maybe he should prevent crimes?  By the time this movie ends, there are about two dozen dead at the hands of this killer because Cross is consistently wrong.  If Alex Cross hadn't been so "clever," the total would have been closer to three.

Alex Cross always gets his man.  Suck it, math!

It wouldn't have been so annoying if Picasso was supposed to be some kind of genius, but he wasn't.  Except when the script implied that he was, for convenience's sake.  Instead, the resident genius in this movie is Alex Cross, whose insights come from a first-year psychology textbook.  The conclusions he draws from crime scenes do not appear to be based on any evidence, either.  How hard is it to make someone seem smart while interpreting evidence?  That's 95% of American scripted television!  He basically fails where David Caruso succeeds.  Ouch.

I'm a sucker for a good police procedural, but even I couldn't stand Alex Cross.  This was a gross misfire of a well-known and successful property.  It wasn't a bad choice to change the tone of this series --- who doesn't like a little action with their cerebral crime solving? --- but it failed as a fun action movie and as a procedural.  It would be easy to blame Tyler Perry for dropping the ball that Morgan Freeman carried so effortlessly, but the real problem came from the script and direction.  This is less "Don't ever cross Alex Cross" and more "Don't ever watch Alex Cross."

Bulletproof (1988)

Full disclosure: I had never seen or heard of Bulletproof (1988) until I stumbled upon a collection of the best/worst movie insults of all time.  This caught my attention:

That's right, Gary Busey, perched in the rafters of a warehouse, called Danny Trejo a "butthorn."  Needless to say, that placed Bulletproof on the top of my to-do list.  But is it really worth it to track down this virtually unknown late-80s action movie, just to hear Gary Busey say "butthorn"?

Yes.  A thousand times, yes!  The glory of Bulletproof is not merely that single line, but 93 minutes of ridiculous action movie silliness that is blissfully unaware of how incredibly, laughably stupid it is.  You might worry that an entire movie's worth of enjoyment cannot come with just one "butthorn" comment.  You're wrong, but just to put your mind at ease, I'll let you in on a secret: it's not just the one comment.

So what is Bulletproof about, aside from butthorns?  It's the story of "Bulletproof" McBain (Gary Busey), a reckless cop who is also a semi-retired secret ops agent because of course he is.  The film opens with him on a stakeout with his older partner (Thalmus Rasulala), who implies that he is too old for this shit.  They're on the lookout for a potential illegal arms deal, and the first hint that the deal is going down comes from a limousine and an ice cream truck that drive into an abandoned warehouse.

Don't try to justify that logic.  You will hurt yourself.

Instead of calling for back-up, McBain decides to sneak into the warehouse and handle things on his own.  And by "sneak," I of course mean "take absolutely no cover in the rafters of the building."  A firefight ensues, one that features a lot of bad guys shooting automatic weapons and not hitting anything.  On the bright side, McBain kills someone every time he fires his revolver.  Over the next few minutes, the following things happen:

• McBain avoids being inured by a rocket launcher that was fired at him from across a room.
• "I think we blew him up!"  "You don't blow up a dude like McBain!"
• A car chase involving an ice cream truck filled with weapons instead of ice cream.
• Multiple 360° spins during the car chase.
• The longest grenade fuse (or whatever determines when grenades explode) ever caught on film.
• McBain's boss arriving at the crime scene, looking around and saying "Well, I guess you had to be there," before secretly complimenting McBain on his work.

Keep in mind that this is just the opening sequence, designed to give the audience subtle hints that McBain is awesomely bad-ass.  After a hard night's work, McBain comes home to rest, but instead finds his attractive quasi-girlfriend/hump buddy waiting for him.

"I'll be Ernie, if you'll be Bert.  Oh, rubber ducky, I'm awfully fond of you...sexually!"

You know what makes this scene great?  Well, yes, the gratuitous nudity.  But it's more than that.  Hump buddy's explanation for why she's there is, essentially, because she's crazy and wants to share that craziness with McBain's penis.  Also, I have to point out a few things in that picture.  How many candles, bubbles and flowers do you think "Bulletproof" McBain keeps in his bathroom?  That's right, none.  So this crazy woman A) made a copy of McBain's house key to get in B) brought in at least a bag's worth of her stuff to feminize his bathroom and C) anticipated waiting a while for him and brought her rubber ducky with.  Oh, and apparently McBain's bathroom has rooms inside it; while Sexy McCrazy is sudsing up, McBain goes to the next room so he can use the sink and mirror to pull out a bullet he caught in the shoulder that night.

Perhaps "Bullet Magnet" would have been a better title

Why am I going into such detail with this plot?  Because this particular plot has absolutely nothing to do with the bulk of the movie.  After an opening like this, I expected a Lethal Weapon knock-off, especially with the old, cranky black partner who loves to remind McBain that his ass is, in fact, black.  That is the beauty of Bulletproof.  Just when you think the movie is going to play it safe and predictable, it decides to make absolutely no sense.  At this point, it becomes an international spy story.  The US government has a super tank, code-named Thunderblast, which is ridiculously powerful.  Like, it's probably worth two, or maybe three tanks.  The government then makes the deliberate choice to allow the Thunderbolt to be captured by terrorists, as part of a larger master plan.  They make sure that McBain's former girlfriend (Darlanne Fluegel) was on the mission, to serve as bait.  So, what's the master plan?  The government wants McBain to recover the stolen tank...that they purposely allowed the terrorists to steal.  So...hmm.  That's a toughie, a point that the script wisely chooses to not address.  What about the terrorists?  Who is McBain fighting?  Cubans.  Nicaraguans.  Arabs.  Russians.  You know, the groups that typically work together and decide to invade America through Mexico, powered by a single tank.  My god, the 80s were hilarious.

I love that the Russian has to wear a fur hat in the Mexican desert so we know where he is from

How is the acting in Bulletproof?   Predictably ridiculous.  Gary Busey leads the way, and I found myself enjoying his over-the-top performance.  It isn't actually good, but it was fun to watch.  Some actors would look terrible in a role that required them to spout horrendous dialogue and be a complete asshole to any character they don't kill first.  Not Busey.  He was as believable in this role as anybody could be.

And yes, the urge you feel to punch his teeth in is perfectly normal

The rest of the cast is far less interesting and entertaining.  Honestly, I don't know why they bothered with any non-Busey scenes in this movie.  Of the good guy supporting cast, L.Q. Jones and Darlanne Fluegel were probably the most noteworthy, although that isn't saying much.  The cast of villains had a few unexpected surprises, though.  William Smith, who was born to play direct-to-video villains in the 80s, plays the evil Russian (oddly, he is credited as "Bill Smith"), and makes sure that there is no question about his character's poorly accented nationality.  Even better than Smith's Yakov Smirnoff impression was Henry Silva.  Silva frequently acted in bad movies and, for some reason, he was often chosen to portray some other ethnicity.  In Bulletproof (1988), he plays an Arabic terrorist with (I guess) Communist leanings and a penchant for rape and murder.  Thank goodness that's not racist at all.

"Nice costume.  The beret really sells the whole 'Arabic terrorist' thing"

One of the funnier things about Bulletproof is the fact that there are two great action movie bad guys in the cast, but they play bit parts.  Danny Trejo and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (who was left uncredited for some reason) were both just starting out in Hollywood, and this was the best work they could get. 

Steve Carver's direction is not too bad, from a technical standpoint.  I mean, sure, he edited out the explanation of why the US government wanted McBain to single-handedly attack terrorists on foreign soil.  And yes, he was responsible for some of the most unintentionally funny flashback scenes I have ever seen.  My favorite was the one where McBain's lying in bed, shirtless, cuddling with his saxophone, and then he flashes back to the time when he wooed his girlfriend by playing the sax on the beach --- and the soundtrack to his dream was clearly not what he was playing on the beach.

Boy, I certainly am convinced that Busey can play the saxophone

But I'm getting off the subject.  Steve Carver put as much stupid action as he could fit into Bulletproof.  One of the more obvious examples of that comes from the scene where the bad guys repeatedly fail to follow through on their threat to find out, once and for all, just how bulletproof McBain is.  I don't know why, but these terrorists, who are happy to kill any supporting character without provocation, treat the murder of McBain and his ex-girlfriend like a seven-year-old treats cleaning his room.  They're totally going to do it, just...not right now.  So, here's the setup.  McBain is tired and helpless, tied to a gigantic wooden spool.

Yes, you heard that right.  A spool.

The bad guys are (finally) going to execute him.  How does he escape?  Well, a grenade blows up and sends his spool rolling down the hillside.

That is absolutely Gary Busey.  I recognize that shirt.

The villains, who are numerous and have cars and trucks, can't seem to track the giant spool down, and McBain escapes.  Does that blow your mind?  It blew mine.

What makes Bulletproof more than just a bad movie is the incomprehensible script.  This story was written by the team that brought us Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, but doesn't make quite as much sense.  This movie doesn't feel like something written by completely sane adults.  It's more like the fever ramblings of a six-year-old, doped up on Nyquil.  What else can explain the fact that Gary Busey is more deadly with a revolver than with a tank (that, for some reason, has cubicle chairs and a coffee maker)?

And why would anybody go to the trouble of giving McBain such ridiculous obstacles and then waste precious time showing McBain trying to figure out the tank's control system?  Reality left this movie before the first butthorn sounded, so this late development was bewildering.  Do you want some more examples of the writing excellence on display in Bulletproof?  Of course you do.

• The password to let McBain know who to team up with in Mexico, on his quest to recapture the Thunderblast, is...wait for it..."Thunderblast."
• Actual comeback, part 1: "Yeah...your FACE!"
• Actual comeback, part 2: the Arabic terrorist is told to go "fuck his camel."
• The Russians recognize McBain by his nickname, "Bulletproof."
• After it's all over, McBain has to drive the tank back to America, though the border patrol.  And they just look confused.

There's a lot more than that, but I don't want to spoil everything.  I would totally buy enough copies of Bulletproof to give to all of my friends, but the only DVD pressing of it is truly awful.  It's in 4:3 aspect ratio and looks like it was recorded directly from a VHS tape.  That wouldn't be a deal-breaker, but the damn thing is still fetching $14-$50 on Amazon.

"What the hell, butthorns?  You know this is worth $5, MAX!"

As a legitimate movie, Bulletproof is not very good, but it is filled with action and is makes sense, if you are incapable of coherent thought.

From the completely unreasonable perspective of Lefty Gold, Bulletproof is so hilariously bad that I watched it twice, back-to-back, before returning the rental.  If you're in the mood for stupid, I cannot recommend this any higher.

Mega Python Vs. Gatoroid

It's been a while since I enjoyed a movie that was meant to be so bad it's good Sure, I loved Mega Piranha, but I was let down by the intentionally campy Piranha (2010) and the PG-13 Shark Night.  The obvious solution to my problem is to figure out what made Mega Piranha so fun.  Let's see...it was a SyFy original TV movie and it starred 80s teen pop star Tiffany.  Where can I find something that will duplicate the key elements of success, but kick things up a notch?

SyFy original movie?  Check.  Tiffany?  Check.  Added star power to push this thing over the top?  Debbie Gibson.  I mean, almost check.  "Mega" in the title, to let you know shit has gotten serious?  Double check.  It's time for me to enjoy a bad movie (and possibly enjoy alcoholic beverages)!

Mega Python vs. Gatoroid begins the way you imagine a movie with this title would: with stupidity.  Nikki Riley (Deborah Gibson) is a herpetologist (that's a PhD in reptile herpes to you non-bookish types) who breaks snakes out of confinement and releases them into the Everglades.  Now, I don't have herpes am not a snake doctor, but even I know that the Everglades have a pretty awful snake overpopulation problem.  You would think a herpetologist would be the last person to release snakes into the Everglades, but you know what happens when you assume...

...you are absolutely correct.

Well, Dr. Riley releases the snakes into the wild and they grow to fantastic sizes because SCIENCE.  Actually, no, scratch that.  Just because; there's no science in this movie.  To counter the snake population, Everglades park ranger Terry O'Hara (Tiffany) allows idiots to hunt snakes in the park.

...But only if they're idiots

That doesn't work so well, and we are soon a few idiots lighter in the swamp.  Sadly, one of the idiot victims was the fiance of Ranger Terry.  Vowing revenge on the gigantic snakes, just like anyone else would, Terry laces some chicken corpses with steroids and feeds them to some alligators.  Naturally, this causes all the alligators in the Everglades to grow exponentially because the screenwriters have a poor understanding of what steroids actually do.  Surprisingly, creating a population of over-sized alligators with 'roid rage does not necessarily solve a gigantic snake overpopulation problem.  It does, somehow, give a ridiculously thin excuse to have the two lead characters catfight.

Does the rest of the plot matter?  Hell, does any of the plot matter?  The answer is definitely "no." 

So, how's the acting in Mega Python vs. Gatoroid?  Practically non-existent.  It doesn't help that the characters are completely irrational, but this is a movie about gigantic snakes and gators --- "acting" was never going to be the primary concern.  I was surprised at how campy this movie was.  Mega Piranha was stupid, sure, but the actors played it pretty straight.  Not so much this time.  If you were aching for Tiffany and Debbie Gobson to camp it up, call each other bitches and behave like Jersey Shore characters, then you might appreciate this film.

So wait...are they insulting the lake here?

It gets a lot worse when the script references some of the duo's 80s pop hits.  I don't have anything against either artist/actress, but I can't stand it when actors wink at the camera, and there's quite a bit of that in this pic.  Luckily, not every actor in this movie had a music career in the 80s.  A (no period) Martinez plays a stoic-to-the-point-of-being-comatose herpetologist that comes up with some ideas that are less than completely idiotic.  Kevin M. Horton got to play a hapless deputy ranger who was used as both cannon fodder and comic relief.  The best actor in the film, by far, was Kathryn Joosten, who almost seemed embarassed to be in this "movie."  At the very least, she provided some fairly dry humor and mediocre acting.  On the bright side, Mickey Dolenz dies in this movie.

I'd look the other way if I had to share scenes with Tiffany, too

What about the direction?  Mega Python vs. Gatoroid was directed by Mary Lambert, who has directed multiple movies (not good ones, but still...) that have reached theaters.   That experience doesn't come into play with this movie.  Wretched acting, poor transitions, illogical character choices, horrible continuity editing, reptile-themed soundtrack contributions from the two stars --- in just about every way, this movie gets it wrong. 

Pythons and alligators hate to actually eat their prey, right?

It's not totally incompetent, though.  There is a plot.  It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it exists and it kind of makes sense.  Well, it doesn't make sense if you are capable of independent thought, but it works decently enough, given the script.  That might sound like I'm giving this movie a participation award for minimal movie competence, but this movie definitely could have been a lot worse.


Since this is a horror movie, the special effects should be discussed.  Do you like special effects?  If "yes," then you might want to skip this.  It's not just the obviously animated gators and snakes that look bad here --- Mega Python vs. Gatoroid goes out of its way to make the backgrounds in driving scenes look bad, like something you would see in a Connery Bond.  And while I must stress that I am absolutely not an expert in reptile behavior, I find it suspicious that gigantic pythons and gators would leave easily identifiable chunks of their victims on dry land.  Check this image out:

Okay, I can buy a giant alligator biting off a dude's arm.  But the fact that the arm is the only thing that's left of him actually doesn't imply that at all.  Was the guy walking around and the gator just bit as hard as it could, snapping up everything except the arm?  Did the guy trip and fall into an alligator man-trap (they're crafty devils, as you doubtlessly know) and his arm was severed as he struggled to climb out?  I can't think of a more logical explanation, can you?

Diagram by survival expert Bear Grylls

It is impressive that the hand on the severed arm has maintained a firm grip on the gun, but what is truly shocking is that the sleeve of the guy's short-sleeved shirt is still there, much less on the correct spot on the body.

Let's be realistic, though --- what do you expect from a movie titled Mega Python vs. Gatoroid?  It delivers on the title, so quit yer bitchin', amiright?  Okay, sure, I can follow that argument to a point.  My problem with this flick is that it is too self-aware.  Had they played it straight and not had characters asking the very legitimate question of "Why would you do that?" I probably would have had more fun with the movie.  Here's the big problem with MPvG: you're funnier than the screenwriters.

The possibilities for this caption > What is in the script

Yes, it's dumb and it's campy and it's absolutely ludicrous, but it's also kinda lame.  Again, I know that is to be expected, but not to this degree.  Mega Python vs. Gatoroid crosses the line from so-bad-you-gotta-see-this to bad-enough-to-be-dull.  

Still not sure whether you would like Mega Python vs. Gatoroid?  Give it a try if any three of the following are things you like to see in your movies:

• Everyone with a Southern accent is clearly mentally handicapped
• Recycled footage
• Dynamite-proof bridges
• Characters figuring out ridiculous plot points using logic by reading the script
• Poorly explained jumps in time
• Park rangers that make the park their obvious last priority
• Curious animal behavior, like snakes hunting in packs
• Hilaribad car chase scenes
• ...and much, much more!

The Resident

I don't often watch Hilary Swank movies.  It's not that I dislike her --- although two Oscars seems a bit much, in my opinion --- it's just that she stars in a lot of crap.  I have similar feelings about Jeffrey Dean Morgan; I like the guy just fine, but he's not in many things I want to watch.  No, what drew me into The Resident was the fact that this was a Hammer Films production featuring Christopher Lee.  Plus, I just reviewed The Apartment, and I found the pairing amusing.  I haven't seen many classic Hammer movies, but I was completely unaware that they had resurrected the brand recently and made a few noteworthy pics (that I haven't seen yet).  Christopher Lee, a two-time Best Actress, a solid character actor, and a classic movie brand --- what could go wrong?

"That depends...how much do you love rape?"

Juliet (Hilary Swank) is a New York City emergency room doctor in need of a new home.  She receives a call from someone, telling her that there is an apartment for rent.  When she arrives, she finds an enormous place in an older building that is nearly perfect: great wood floors, about three acres of floorspace, and a ridiculous view of the city.  The downside is that the train passes pretty close to the building and things have a tendency to vibrate off of shelves.  The price is shockingly cheap (by NYC standards), so Juliet takes the place.

"I like the plastic on the walls.  It makes it easier to clean blood off!"

Her landlord is Max (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), whose only job appears to be renovating the building; Max and his grandfather, August (Christopher Lee), are the building's only other tenants.  Juliet loves her new place, but the creaks and moans of the building play tricks on her, making her think that she is not alone.  Nevertheless, things appear to be getting better for her.  She even randomly encounters Max socially and the two hit it off; in other words, the pair quickly start getting naked together.

Now stop.  Rewind.  The film backs up to give the viewer an alternate point of view on the story thus far.  It turns out that the friendly Max has been stalking Juliet for some time and she played right into his hands.  Remember those moments Juliet thought she wasn't alone?  That's because she wasn't.  Two-way mirrors, peepholes and secret passages abound in her apartment, and you can be sure that behind every creepy noise in the place, Max is hiding and breathing heavily.

Aww!  Look at that puppy dog face!  You are forgiven for everything, Max!

At this point, the film can take a few directions.  The first would be for the pair to start dating and either become a lovely couple, or his creepy nature would turn this into a taut thriller, where Juliet only gradually realizes how dangerous Max is --- and he's sleeping right next to her!  Alternately, Juliet could put a stop to their naked time before the grinding starts and Max could go into full-on horror movie villain mode.  The Resident opts for the second, easier, route.

How's the acting in The Resident?  I suppose that depends on how forgiving you are.  I wouldn't say that Hilary Swank was good, but she played her role capably.  Is it her fault that her character is almost fatally stupid?  I don't think so, but it would have been nice for her paranoid character to call the police, even once.  I will say, however, that I was surprised that she had some brief getting-out-of-the-tub nudity; that's just about the cheapest excuse for nudity you will come across in a film, and I wasn't expecting it from her in a horror flick.  I'm not complaining, I'm just saying.  Jeffrey Dean Morgan was certainly creepy for a good portion of this film, so I guess he was somewhat successful.  Toward the end of the movie, he exchanged creepiness for sub-par horror slasher villainy, and he wasn't very good at that.  I would say that he was solid for the first half of the film, but when the plot returned from its flashback, his performance went downhill quickly.  Christopher Lee felt out of place in this movie, somehow; I like seeing him act, but hearing his strong voice coming out of his frail body made me a little sad.

Little known fact: Christopher Lee is Noah

Lee Pace didn't have much do do.  He played Juliet's unfaithful ex, and his part was fairly unremarkable.  He got beat up like a chump twice and went grocery shopping.

Not necessarily in that order

Aunjanue Ellis is the only supporting character that isn't terribly important in the overall plot.  She urges Juliet to date Max and talks trash about Lee Pace.  On the one hand, I guess her character can be seen as someone encouraging Juliet, but everything she supports (take the apartment, date Max, etc.) is really, really bad advice.

The Resident was Antti Jokinen's first (and so far, only) feature film director credit.  That's probably for the best.  I will give Jokinen some credit; I thought the first thirty minutes were surprisingly solid, although the story felt familiar.  I also like that the "surprise" of Max being a creep was not held back as a major plot twist, because...well, it was pretty damn obvious.  His fancier camera work was handled clumsily, making scenes that should have been ambiguous (is she alone, or isn't she?) pretty cut-and-dried.  I didn't like the choice to rewind the plot to show us how awful Max is, but I suppose it was better than him having a shrine to Juliet in his closet.  My main problem with how Jokinen directed this movie was that he was inconsistent.  I would have been fine with this film if he had maintained the suspense from the first act.  The second act, during the rewind, took all the mystery from the story.  The third act just sucked, as Max went from creepy to evil with less buildup than the 12th kill in a Jason movie.  I don't think Jokinen did a terrible job directing this film, but he certainly didn't make this story better with his direction.

Example: he frequently told his actors to look perturbed, not scared

Unfortunately, Jokinen was also responsible for the major weakness of The Resident: the writing.  He co-wrote this screenplay with a guy who was involved in the third Underworld movie, so the talent pool for this screenplay was not particularly deep.  Still, this story is pure crap.  Ignoring the cliche of the nice guy who is secretly disturbed, there really isn't any other logical suspect when Juliet gets paranoid that she is being watched.  So, that means Juliet is either paranoid or her landlord is spying on her; given the title, that seems like a poorly constructed mystery.  What really pushed this movie over the edge from drudgery to utter crap was how the writers showed that Max was disturbed.  Max's primary way to get close to Juliet was by drugging her and touching her while she was asleep.  Licking her hands was creepy enough, but raping her while she was unconscious was more gross than shocking.

That's so...erotic?

If you're going to make rape a plot point, that should not be the effect.  I also did not need to see multiple scenes where Max masturbated while in Juliet's apartment.  They throw in some stuff where Christopher Lee implies that Max's parents were disturbed, too, but it doesn't go anywhere.  I think they overplayed their hand with Max, making his transition from peeper to murderer/rapist too abrupt.

It's surprisingly well-lit when Max chooses to creep

I would have been much happier if Max was just creepy and maybe building up toward rape, when he panics and kills someone and, from there, we see him get more desperate and his actions more drastic.  There's just no build to this plot whatsoever.  Instead of being suspenseful or scary, it is boring, over-familiar and uncomfortable.  I should be rooting for either the killer or the heroine here, but neither is particularly likable.  I had difficulty understanding why I wasn't sympathetic toward Juliet for a little while.  Then, I realized that she was an idiot.  She oversleeps after her evening wine bottle was drugged; instead of drinking less, she blames it on her apartment.  Yes, that makes perfect sense.  On the bright side, the movie did end with a nail gun-related death, so there's that.

Shark Night 3D

When I first saw the trailer for Shark Night 3D, I was pretty excited.  I love me some hilariously bad horror and the inclusion of sharks guaranteed the inclusion of gratuitous violence and nudity.  While I didn't love Piranha 3D, this movie looked much less campy and far more so-bad-it's-good.  Aaaaand then I noticed that Shark Night 3D was rated PG-13.  So much for gratuitous anything, which pretty much eliminates anyone's need to watch this movie.  Or does it...?

Shark Night 3D opens with a hot chick in a bikini doing...something...in the water by a lake.  I would say she was treading water, or bobbing around, but she was definitely only in the water up to her ribs, so...maybe she was jazzercising?  Whatever.  The camera keeps cutting to an underwater view, getting closer and closer until AAAA!  ...Oh, it was just her boyfriend.  Scary.  After the boyfriend reminds the audience that this is PG-13 --- he takes her top off and throws it away, as she remains unexposed in the water --- the girl is killed by something underwater.  It's hard to say what, though.  Sure, the movie title would imply a shark, but she is in shallow water and you don't see a fin.  It's also hard to figure out what body part of hers is being pulled as she thrashes in the water.  From the above-water shots, it looks like something has got her leg, but the underwater shots clearly show her legs unmolested.  Maybe it's a ghost shark?  Whatever.  She served her purpose.

Shark bait!  Moo-ha-ha!

The movie proper begins with college undergrads Nick (Dustin Milligan) and Gordon (Joel David Moore) being invited to hang out with the cool kids at Sara's (Sara Paxton) lake house, which is actually an island house in a lake.  Obviously, these coeds (who also include possible up-and-comers Alyssa Diaz, Chris Zylka, and singer Katharine McPhee) are looking for a weekend of sinning, but they settle for MPAA-approved activites, like playing beer pong on an inflatable beer pong table and wake boarding. There's just one thing these kids forgot: sharks hate coeds.  While wake boarding, a shark goes after Malik (Sinqua Walls), eventually taking his arm off with a remarkably clean bite.  So, big surprise, everybody --- the black guy in a horror movie is the first to die.  Actually, that's not quite true...not only does Malik survive, but the shark leaves his arm, unchewed, on the bottom of the lake.

It didn't attack for food...is this a hate crime?

Everybody initially assumes that Malik's arm was cut off by the boat propeller, but that nonsense thankfully lasts only a few minutes.  Actually, the director manages to take out two birds with one stone, dispelling that annoying idea and showing off what little T&A this movie can show:

"OMG, it's a shark!  Now...bend over a little more..."

From this point on, college undergraduates are on the menu for the sharks.  Yes, "sharks" plural.  Normally, I would laugh at the notion of sharks living in fresh water, but this movie hints that this lake is Lake Pontchartrain, the second-largest salt water lake in America.  Theoretically, if a shark found its way into the lake (which is right by New Orleans), it could survive, provided the temperature is right and it has a decent food supply. 

Example of "food supply"

How will these coeds keep themselves safe?  Certainly not by staying out of the water.  Thankfully, Shark Night 3D also adds some human villains to complicate matters.  One thing is for certain: it's going to be a long night for these innocent young adults.  A long SHARK night!  **sound of me high-fiving myself**

I don't even know where to begin discussing with Shark Night 3D.  The acting, maybe?  Well, there isn't much of it.  To be completely honest, I wasn't bothered by any of the actors.  I thought everyone played their parts about as well as the script asked for. 

It didn't ask for much, though

I found the non-college cast to be a little more interesting than the main cast.  Something makes me want to like Donald Logue, but I have no idea why, since he doesn't make good movies.  His monologue did provide some of the best unintentional laughs in the film, though.  I also liked the idea of Chris Carmack's character being upset for being "horribly disfigured;" he took a propeller to the face as a teen and looks like this:   

Casper Van Dien?

Joshua Leonard is more amusing, playing a redneck racist who sharpened his teeth into points.  I wonder if his character has anything to do with the sharks in the lake?

Director David R. Ellis has always been a hack, and Shark Night 3D is just the same old thing for him, only with 3D effects.  Ellis' movies have always had an R-rating to make them at least exploitative enough to be occasionally enjoyable, but he was definitely limited by the PG-13 rating.  I don't have a problem with  PG-13 horror movies, in theory.  But they can't be made the same way that R-rated horror movies are, since they can't show the same things.  While I truly believe that a shark attack movie without gore is pure idiocy, this could have worked if Ellis had tried to build suspense or built a mystery.  He didn't.  He went for sensational ridiculousness because that is what he knows best, but the film's rating makes his shocks and scares feel cheap.

A possible mystery: why is the shark wearing lipstick?

Of course, no one expected Shark Night 3D to actually be a good movie.  The goal was for this to be an entertaining movie, and it does have its moments.  The highlights:

- The shark breaching the water to kill the jetski rider was hilarious
- Main guy to douchey guy who is a nude model for art classes: "I had the pleasure of sketching your genitals every Tuesday and Thursday"
Douchey guy: "You're welcome"

And that's where most people's highlights would end.  But there are those who would watch this movie hoping to make it into a fun movie to get drunk to --- I get that impulse, too, sometimes.  Shark Night 3D is not the droid you're looking for, though.  Yes, the reasoning for why there are sharks in the lake is absolutely hilarious on a conceptual level.  Yes, the behavior of the sharks is amusingly unnatural; if you can do the math to explain how a shark could time the jetski death*, I will be forever thankful if you explain it in the comments.  Yes, there are more than a few moments where you will wonder whether or not something was intentional in this film.

Accidental, or really racist?  You decide

Focusing on those things can make this movie a little funny.  But there is a toll when you watch this film: it's boring.  Without gore or gratuitous nudity, you are left with a bad script with wretched dialogue and mediocre special effects.  The body count doesn't even hit double digits.  The tone of the movie is similar to that of David R. Ellis' Snakes on a Plane, just minus the foul language, violence, and nudity that made that movie fun to watch.  I'm not saying that you can't be a little entertained by watching it --- that is why I'm not spewing hate at this movie --- but there are so many better options than Shark Night 3D.

* Okay, so this guy is speeding on a jetski, being chased by sharks, right?  Right.  He turns to look back, and when he looks ahead again, he sees a gigantic shark breaching the water ahead of him and jumping right for him.  The combination of his speed in one direction and the shark's in the other works perfectly to kill the jetski rider.  But look closer at the scene:

The shark breached the water with barely any margin for error!  How could it time that leap so perfectly on a target that was moving toward it?  What is the margin for error here?  For that matter, how was the shark aware of the jetski rider in the first place?  Whatever the answers, I think we can all agree that this is one talented shark.