Monsters vs Aliens

Dreamworks Animation is unfairly held to the impossibly-high standards of rival Pixar because both deal primarily in 3D Computer Animation films, despite often working in wholly different genres and styles: Pixar, with the exception of the breezy (and forgetable) "Cars," works in big-scale whimsical fantasy-dramas that happen to be cartoons; while DWA, with the exception of the "Ice Age" films, focuses on lightweight high-concept pop comedy... it's like comparing The Three Stooges to The Seventh Seal because they're both in black and white. Basically, it's not fair to ask "Monsters vs. Aliens" to live up to, say, "The Incredibles" when they have such wildly different goals and DNA.

Which isn't to say that MvA is a great film, just a decent one with a few moments of real joy. It's fast and enjoyable enough, but hovering at the margins are scraps of in-jokey movie-geek-mana that suggest a potentially more interesting concept watered-down a bit to fit in DWA's expected quota of gags and pop-culture references. But it's "good enough," overall.

The idea is that the government has been maintaining a facility to house various "monsters" over the years, all of whom are unsubtle references to iconic 50s movie-monsters: Missing Link (read: Gillman aka Creature From The Black Lagoon,) Bob (read: The Blob,) Dr. Cockroach (read: The Fly) and Insectasaurus (read: Japanese "kaiju" monsters, though which one specifically would be a spoiler) are the mainstays; recently joined by Ginormica (read: The 50 Foot Woman) a young woman turned into a giantess after being struck by a meteor on her wedding day. Said meteor and it's giant-izing power are sought by alien baddie Galaxor, who launches an invasion of Earth which the Monsters are mobilized to counter - despite having little experience or training as to using their unique abilities for combat; particularly Ginormica (real name Susan) who just wants to earn freedom to return to a normal life that she (somewhat unrealistically) hopes is still waiting for her.

As is usually the case with these things, it's more fun when the Monsters are hanging out bouncing their personas off one another than it is when all the sturm und drang gets going, but it's all impressively mounted and never wears out it's welcome. The "spectacle" part is helped ALOT by the presence of Insectasaurus, a skyscraper-sized irradiated fuzzy-bug with the mental state of a baby puppy (the army leads him around via a blinking light dangled from a helicopter) the damn thing is too fun for words. Reese Witherspoon has the mostly-thankless task of playing Ginormica as the "straight" role to the craziness around her, but she makes it work.

It's not QUITE as good as I'm given to imagine a movie about Gillman, Fly, 50 Foot Woman, The Blob and a Kaiju fighting aliens could be, but it's decent and the 3D gags are impressive.

House M.D., Season 4

Thanks to Mikhail Abasov

The Haunting In Connecticut

Ghosts terrify me. Both the idea of them and the real thing. I firmly believe ("know," really) that I've encountered what I'd have to call ghosts twice in my life. The second encounter was physical (I'm quite certain that it touched me) and was sufficient to send me running into the night like a scared little toddler. This is different, btw, from me saying that I have some solid theory as to exactly "WHAT" a ghost is in a spiritual sense or otherwise; there's simply no other term to describe the phenomena I encountered on these occasions - and no other term to describe my reaction other than abject mortal terror. I am scared of ghosts like I'm scared of no other 'unreal' thing.

As such, bad ghost movies are my LEAST favorite type of bad movie, because they force me into a critical paradox: When it comes to horror movies, the question of whether or not it's "scary" is generally supposed to be an all-powerful measure which can render all other issues moot - if it "works" at scaring you, then clearly the bad acting, directing, etc. didn't "matter," right? Problem is, I'm going to be "scared" by ANY ghost movie, even a bad one, which puts me in the unpleasant position of explaining how a horror film that terrified me was still crappy regardless. So, basically, if you want a four-word review of this film: Scared me, still sucked.

We're in familiar "Amityville" territory, story-wise: A troubled family moves into an old dark house that does EVERYTHING it can to advertise itself as haunted even BEFORE they find out it's an abandoned funeral home (complete with untouched, fully-stocked morgue!) and things start going bump (preceded, of course, by an on-cue drop in the ambient noise) in the night. They need the house because it's close to the hospital where the eldest son is undergoing experimental Cancer treatments, a plot-device which does double-duty at keeping them from moving out AND explaining why people don't believe the kid's visions. Said kid, by the way, is REALLY asking for it: Following a nightmare in which he encounters a specter in the basement, he immediately decides thats where he'll keep his bed. Not the smartest move he'll make.

The "what's going on" is predictable as hell, a half-hearted grab-bag of every haunted house cliche in the book including but not limited to grave-robbing, necromancy, wronged kids, seances, ectoplasm and excuses for the employment of the old spooky-old-timey-photograph routine. For what it's worth, I can safely say the film also employs just about the stupidest excuse for getting the lights all turned out in recent memory. Virginia Madsen plays the mom, while Elias Koteas does what he can in a simply AWFUL role as a fellow cancer patient who AMAZINGLY turns out to be a ghost-busting priest. What're the odds?

CUTAWAYS

While perusing through the works of Charles Band, the producer of this week’s epic Spellcaster, I couldn’t help but be reminded of this scene from 1981’s S.O.B. in which everyone’s favorite F-Trooper Larry Storch delivers a eulogy only Tinseltown could appreciate. I thought of it because, except for perhaps the part about grossing $200 million off a single film, I imagine Band’s own eulogy will run something along the lines of this one. How so, you ask? Well, it’s the litany of questionable movie titles the overzealous guru rolls off during his tribute. It’s eerily similar to some of the very real titles you’ll find amongst the hundreds of films Band has been involved with over the past three decades, a few of which we’ve provided below. (And remember, be sure to use Larry Storch’s guru voice as you read them.)

Last Foxtrot in Burbank - The Day Time Ended – Zombiethon – Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity - Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama - Dreamaniac - Assault of the Killer Bimbos - Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death - Castle Freak - Kraa! The Sea Monster - Teenage Space Vampires - The Horrible Dr. Bones - Monsters Gone Wild! - Blood, Sweat, & Fears – Evil Bong.

As you can see, reading the titles of a Band film can sometimes be just as entertaining as watching them. (Sometimes, more so.) But that’s on purpose. In an interview from a few years back, Band noted, “a strong title, of course, has always been important and the idea of combining two words or really putting a lot of thought into the title before a picture is even written. Corman did it too so I can't claim that was my idea but I certainly focused on that a lot. Most of the films that I made, that I conceived, that I was very involved with and in some cases directed, definitely started with the title and usually a piece of artwork that made sense. Then I would work back to the script and the story and make the movie. So that little formula has worked for me.” And it does work! I’ve never even heard of The Horrible Dr. Bones until now, and though most reviews say you should eat glass instead of watching it, I still kind of want to find a copy just because it has the freakin’ name The Horrible Dr. Bones!

Now, when coming up with a good title for anything, author and speaker Dave Taylor suggests you should “focus on the single most important concept, idea, product, vendor or topic… and then ensure that appears in the title too and you'll be well on your way to creating good titles.” Christians have always had an innate sense of this principle, however, when trying to come up with titles for an omnipresent, omnipotent God, it’s been kind of hard to narrow the focus down to a single most important concept. So hard, in fact, that Holy scripture alone contains over 100 names for Jesus. By 1953, Arthur C. Clarke had bumped the total up to nine billion.

Fortunately, as Catholics, we don’t have to worry about trying to figure out just the right one. Sometime back in the fifteenth century, the Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus first made its appearance and it’s been a popular devotion ever since. Based on a number of the names which appear in scripture, this call-and-response petition to God contains the following titles for Jesus:

Lord – Christ - God the Father of Heaven - God the Son, Redeemer of the world - God the Holy Spirit - Holy Trinity, one God - Jesus, Son of the living God - splendor of the Father - brightness of eternal light -King of glory - sun of justice - Son of the Virgin Mary - most amiable - most admirable - the mighty God - Father of the world to come - angel of great counsel - most powerful - most patient - most obedient - meek and humble of heart - lover of chastity - lover of us - God of peace - author of life - example of virtues - zealous lover of souls - our God - our refuge - father of the poor - treasure of the faithful - good Shepherd - true light - eternal wisdom - infinite goodness - our way and our life - joy of Angels - King of the Patriarchs - Master of the Apostles - teacher of the Evangelists - strength of Martyrs - light of Confessors - purity of Virgins - crown of Saints – Lamb of God.

Much like Taylor advises, each of these titles concentrates on a specific important aspect of God’s nature, and each one is worthy of meditation. On occasion I pray the Litany of The Holy Name during adoration, waiting to see which one or two titles stick in my mind, and then contemplate on those. I’ve yet to come away without some small insight. Of course, it’s an old devotion, and probably not to everyone’s style, but if you’re ever stuck in a rut prayer-wise, you might want to give a Litany (this or any other) a try. You’re not likely to come away disappointed.

Lie to me, Season 1

Thanks to Mellow Jammi

I Love You Man

Here's one of those movies who's screenplay seems to have come from a writer thumbing through "Us," "People" or some other worthless checkout-counter pablum, reading about pop-culture non-words like "man-date" or "man-cave" and going "A-HA!" I'm not sure if that's where "I Love You Man" came from, but that's what it plays-out like. Is it funny? Sure. But much like the non-words forming it's high-concept, nobody will remember it in a year or less.

Paul Rudd is playing a realtor named Peter who's impending marriage has inadvertently sent him into a mini-crisis - amid his consideration of a "best man," his family and friends point out that he doesn't have (has never had, really) any close male friends; certainly not a "best" one. The reasons for this are easily divined: Peter is the Perfect Boyfriend, a one-man girl-drink-mixin', chick-flick-toleratin', problem-listenin' machine who's dedication to pleasing his ladyfriends has left him without a discernable male social life. Now, the poor guy is seeing pairs of Good Buddies everywhere he looks; so he embarks on a quest to "pick up" some Y-chromosomed compatriots.

So, it's the "formula" of a romantic comedy applied to a story of platonic male friendship. There've been worse ideas. The film is at it's weakest (though still amusing) early on as it name-checks the tropes of "man-dates" and expected gags - with the hysterical exception of Thomas Lennon (your go-to-guy for ambiguous homosexuality) as an "ideal" suitor who's notion of "man-date" is significantly more literal than Peter's. The film get's to it's "point" when Peter meets slovenly uber-masculine slacker Sidney (Jason Segel) and they hit it off... to the point that it starts to cause some friction with Peter's regular fiancee-centric life.

Yes, it's another scion of "Clerks" in which a guy's rocky road to adulthood is impeded, commented-on and (maybe) helped by his wackier best bud. But it's reasonably funny, even if it won't likely be remembered as a high point in anyone's career.

Sorority Row