Spider-Man 3 (2007)

I think it's safe to say that Spider-Man is, if I may use a metaphor, the goose that laid the golden egg for Marvel Comics. In the forty-five years since he was created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, Spider-Man has not only become Marvel's flagship character, but one of the most beloved characters the comic book industry has ever seen. That popularity has been most evidenced as of late by the incredible success of the live-action movies starring the web-slinging superhero.

The movies have raked in a lot of cash from both moviegoers and the resulting merchandise sales, and helped to revolutionize the way superhero movies are made. But with the first Spider-Man movie and its sequel earning recognition as two of the best comic book adaptations ever put to film, a question ends up being raised. That question: What happens when an ultra-popular movie franchise starts to run out of steam? The answer: You end up with movies like Spider-Man 3.

While it advanced an important story arc within the movies and introduced characters who've been important parts of Spider-Man's history, it fell into the same trap that Batman Forever and X-Men: The Last Stand fell into by proving that on occasion, the third time isn't exactly the charm.

Life couldn't be much better for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire). He's dating the girl of his dreams, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), he's doing well in college, his work as a freelance photographer for the Daily Bugle is going well, and New York City has finally grown to love his alter ego, their friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. But as always in movies like this, a rocky road lies ahead for our hero. Harry Osborn (James Franco) continues to blame Peter for killing his father, and with the discovery of a hidden cache of Green Goblin equipment, he plans on having his revenge.

That's not the only kink in the road, either. Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), the true murderer of Peter's beloved uncle, has escaped from prison. And thanks to an accident at a scientific testing facility, his entire body has turned into living, malleable sand. Using his newfound condition as a way to commit daring bank robberies, he crosses paths with a vengeful Spider-Man, who intends to make Marko pay for his crimes. These feelings of anger along with the pride in himself that he's developed thanks to Spidey's surging popularity, are only made worse by a symbiote from outer space that has bonded with Peter and manifested itself as a black duplicate of his Spider-Man costume.

All of the negative elements of Peter's personality — particularly that pride and anger — are amplified to an extreme degree by that costume. His growing hubris alienates Mary Jane and pushes her away, while his enhanced aggression leads him to become more violent. This violent behavior evidences itself when he nearly kills Marko, then disfigures Harry's face with a live grenade during a fight. After a subsequent argument with Mary Jane ends with him punching her, a shocked Peter forcibly tears himself away from the symbiote... only for it to end up in the hands of Eddie Brock (Topher Grace). A rival photographer who lost his job at the Daily Bugle after Peter proved he'd doctored a picture of Spider-Man, Brock has been praying for Peter's death. And with the symbiote, his prayers are one step closer to being answered. Now faced with three new villains and a crumbling relationship with Mary Jane, Peter's life couldn't be much tougher.

Did that plot synopsis sound complicated and convoluted? Try writing it all. You'd be surprised at how much I actually left out in order for it to make any sense. Spider-Man 3 is a straight-up mess of a movie from start to finish, with too much going on and not enough effort put into making sense of it. The movie is two hours and nineteen minutes long, which should have been plenty of time to properly develop something and make a movie befitting of the reputation the other two have developed.

But there's just so much going on, that 139 minutes still isn't enough time to do it all. It's a movie that could have benefited from being either forty-five minutes longer in order to resolve things properly, or had something (or some things, plural) taken out so more concentration could be put on something else. The flawed narrative ends up hurting the movie, resulting in a failure to come close to any sort of expectations that anyone could have for it. After two awesome movies starring Spider-Man, how do the creative forces behind Spider-Man 3 look at this movie and decide that it's a worthy successor? Could someone answer that question for me, please?

I guess we'll start with Sam Raimi's directorial work first. I'll give credit where credit is due and say that he does a fine job here. It doesn't seem quite as good as how he handled the previous two movies, but Raimi's efforts are still solid. He's shown time and time again that he has a knack for creativity when he's working behind the camera, and he doesn't disappoint with Spider-Man 3. Raimi also gets some fantastic camerawork from cinematographer Bill Pope, along with great a musical score from composer Christopher Young (who excellently duplicates the themes crafted by Danny Elfman in the previous movies). My only real problem with Raimi's work, though, is that he feels like he's just going through the motions. Maybe doing three of these movies in six years has worn him out?

I felt like he'd put it into auto-pilot, and thus, we end up feeling like we've seen this all before. It doesn't help that the CGI effects have taken a big step backward. With the exception of the scene where Sandman initially reconstitutes himself after being atomized at the test facility (a scene that looks absolutely amazing, I must admit), the CGI appears to have reverted to the not completely convincing nature of the original movie. I said in my review of the first Spidey movie that the hero and the villain looked like video game characters, something I can also say about Spider-Man 3.

To be more specific, the initial fight between Peter and Harry looks like a cartoon, with not that many realistic-looking moments to be found. It's still an exciting scene, don't get me wrong. It would be fantastic if the movie was done entirely in CGI. But because in a live-action movie, it looks sloppy. I know that's not entirely Raimi's fault, since he's not in charge of the computer imagery department, but you'd think he would have the final say in what went into his movie.

Next up is the screenplay, written by Raimi, his brother Ivan, and Allen Sargent. I'll put it simply: the script is bad, very bad. It not only suffers from many of the same flaws that plagued the previous two movies (like Spidey somehow managing to lose his mask over the course of the final battle), but is hindered by the aforementioned problem of bringing way too much to the table. It's like the Raimis and Sargent had the idea to cram as much stuff into the movie as they could, just in case there wasn't a Spider-Man 4. There's Sandman, the Venom symbiote, the romantic squabbles between Peter and Mary Jane, the introduction of Gwen Stacy, and the further evolution of Harry's hatred of Spider-Man. They even work in a little time for Curt Connors, a character who becomes the villainous Lizard in the comics. So much stuff is crammed into this movie that there's not enough space for things to develop in a satisfactory matter.

Because there are so many dangling threads, it takes forever to tie them all up. By the time they circle back around, you've almost forgotten about what's happened previously. It doesn't help that a lot of things, like the poor attempt at resurrecting the Peter/Mary Jane/Harry love triangle, just spin their wheels and don't accomplish anything. The scene where Mary Jane rebuffs Peter's marriage proposal is an effectively sad one, but other than that, we're presented with some of the cheesiest melodrama since Degrassi Junior High.

And that's what makes things so bad. The whole script poorly handles everything that comes along. Take Gwen Stacy, for example. She's one of the most critical supporting characters in Spider-Man's history, a character who shook up the entire American comic book industry when she was killed off back in the '70s. She is finally introduced into the movie franchise here, but despite her importance to the Spidey mythos, she's treated almost as an afterthought. She's given right around ten minutes of screen time in the finished film, which amounts to practically nothing in the grand scheme of things. For all the movie version of Gwen is worth, they could have given the character any random name and it wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever. It's as if the Raimis and Sargent saw how the Alicia Masters character had been rendered virtually useless in the Fantastic Four movies, and said to themselves, "Yeah, we can do that."

The script also suffers from the cheapest, most contrived climax imaginable. There's Mary Jane playing the damsel in distress (again!), the downright silly way that we arrive at Sandman's fate, and an astoundingly stupid deus ex machina that resolves the "Harry hates Spider-Man" arc in a way that insults the intelligence of everyone who has become emotionally invested in this trilogy. Did the writers paint themselves into a corner during the writing process and have to rush the ending?

That's one of the movie's biggest problems; everything feels rushed, which ends up making everything look bad. That deus ex machina is particularly offensive, as there is absolutely no logic behind it. Without spoiling too much, I'll say that it involves Harry learning the truth about the Green Goblin's death. That might not have been such a big deal had this discovery been handled differently. But it's done here in a way that makes you wonder why nobody said anything about it sooner. It's lame beyond words.

And speaking of lame, how about the movie's depiction of Venom? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Venom is one of Spider-Man's most popular villains, but the character's fans are utterly crapped on by Spider-Man 3. Eddie Brock is only a minor annoyance throughout the movie, and he doesn't even turn into Venom until the last thirty minutes of the movie. And when Venom does appear, he ends up looking really weak in the long run. Venom's entire run in the movie consists of asking Sandman if he wants to team up, fighting Spider-Man, and dying like a punk. That's it!

I've heard from various sources that Sam Raimi has never been a fan of Venom, but that producer Avi Arad pretty much forced him to shoehorn the character a movie that had no place for him. Even if Arad did force that, there's no reason to write such an awful version of the character. Frankly, Venom is a character that could have used his own movie without the two other villains bogging him down. It would have been a lot better had they put New Goblin and Sandman together in this movie, then saved Venom for Spider-Man 4. But instead, we're stuck with this big ol' letdown.

I guess we'll wrap things up with the acting, which is the very definition of "mixed bag." Some of the cast is good, some of them are bad, and a few of them are mediocre at best. On the good side, let's start with the leading man, Tobey Maguire. Maguire puts forth an impressive performance, playing the role as if he were a drug addict. The black suit is like Spider-Man's heroin, and his infatuation with it leads to terrible changes in his personality and ruins his relationships with his loved ones. That stress pushes him deeper into the addiction that is slowly ruining his life, and he's forced to live with the consequences once he finally breaks away from it.

Maguire handles this with conviction, making a performance worth watching. The aforementioned scene where Mary Jane dumps Peter when he tries to propose is so sad, and it's all because of Maguire. But as good as he is, did we really need the the scene where he struts down the street in a fancy suit? Okay, he's supposed to be a narcissistic douchebag, I get it. I don't need to see him with a goofy haircut that makes him look like the lead singer of some lame emo band, strutting around like he's a only paint can and a Bee Gees song away from doing his interpretation of Saturday Night Fever. And did we need the whole jazz dance routine? Why not just rename the movie to Spider-Man: The Musical and be done with it? There were other ways to build up to Peter punching Mary Jane, but they went with this awful scene? None of the lame parts are Maguire's fault, since he isn't the one who decided to put those scenes in the movie, but they make him look really bad.

And in the role of the female lead, Kirsten Dunst isn't as good as she was previously. Dunst's interviews during the promotional campaign made her sound likes he only agreed to do the movie because Sony offered her a huge paycheck. Perhaps they paid her too much, because I personally felt that her work wasn't all that impressive. (I could say Maguire's interviews came across the same way as Dunst's, but he still did a decent enough job.) I enjoyed Dunst's performances in the first two movies and thought she and Maguire had good chemistry together, but I really can't say either of those things came across Spider-Man 3. Yeah, Dunst plays a believable damsel in distress, and there are a few scenes where she isn't all that bad But other than that, I have to say I wasn't exactly impressed.

On the other hand, I did like James Franco as the ultra-cocky, slightly insane Harry Osborn. The character's evolution throughout the trilogy has been worth following, and Franco's consistent performances in all three movies has really helped that. The other villains also do their fair share of good work. Topher Grace wasn't exactly the first person I'd have thought of when it comes to casting Venom, mainly due to his comedic work on That 70s Show. But Grace shows that he's up to the challenge, playing Eddie Brock as a total and complete weasel. And when he finally gets the all-too-brief opportunity to play Venom, he pulls off the "drunk with power" aspect convincingly.

Perhaps the best performance in the movie, however, comes from Thomas Haden Church. The Sandman character is depicted here not as being truly villainous, but as someone who fell into a life of crime only because it was the quickest way to help his sick daughter. Sandman's intentions are noble even if his methods are not, and Church's sympathetic portrayal excellently conveys that. It's a shame such fine work is stuck in such a mediocre movie. The rest of the cast, the ancillary performers left to the background, also do very well. Bryce Dallas Howard and Rosemary Harris are likeable as Gwen Stacy and Peter's aunt May, despite their characters being shuffled off into almost complete irrelevance. The movie's comic relief are particularly great. Bruce Campbell's extended cameo as a maître d' at a French restaurant is hilarious, and J.K. Simmons and Elizabeth Banks have a fun comedic timing together that makes the Daily Bugle scenes thoroughly entertaining.

I really wanted to like Spider-Man 3. The first time I saw it, I actually didn't think it was all that bad. But just like the movie's hero, the negative aspects become more pronounced the the more times I watch it. There are some good things in there, mainly amongst the cast. However, the truth is that Spider-Man 3 is one of the most frustratingly disappointing movies I've ever seen. By the time the closing credits roll, you're left asking, "Where the hell did this go wrong?" That's a good question, but I'm not really sure if I have an answer. Obviously, something went wrong during the creative process. It's just a shame that nobody caught that problem, and we thusly ended up with what we got. I guess I'd give Spider-Man 3 two and a half stars on my usual Five Star Sutton Scale, and I hope that future Spider-Man sequels don't suffer like this one did.

Final Rating: **½

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Following the debut of Superman in 1938, superheroes became all the rage. Superman and Batman became household names, and DC Comics was put on the map. Time passed, the Golden Age of comic books came to a close, and it was time for something new. That something new arrived on the scene in 1961, when Marvel Comics began their revolution of the comics industry with their newest characters, the Fantastic Four. Initially created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby to serve as Marvel's response to the DC superteam known as the Justice League, the Fantastic Four were a familial unit that paved the way for other Marvel superheroes with their own personal problems that needed dealing with.

They've seen many adventures over the course of their nearly fifty-year run, but one of their most historically significant story arcs is one commonly known as the "Galactus Trilogy." The three-issue story published in 1966 told the tale of the Fantastic Four's battle to save Earth from an extraterrestrial being that devours entire planets for sustenance. Though its box office success was relatively modest, the Fantastic Four movie in 2005 was successful enough that 20th Century Fox approved a sequel, with the Galactus Trilogy pegged to serve as its inspiration. The sequel might not be the best movie it could have been, but it's certainly a fun ride that I feel surpasses its predecessor.

Two years have passed since the Fantastic Four — Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis), and siblings Sue (Jessica Alba) and Johnny Storm (Jessica Alba) — embarked upon their first adventure. They've become four of the hottest celebrities in the world during that time, making Reed and Sue's impending nuptials the biggest social event of the decade.

Their wedding is soon overshadowed, however, by the arrival of a mysterious interstellar voyager. This traveler has been causing power outages and wild changes in global weather patterns, as well as creating enormous craters around the planet for reasons unknown, and the Fantastic Four are called in by the military to track the being they've dubbed "the Silver Surfer" (Doug Jones, with the voice of Laurence Fishburne). But tracking the Silver Surfer doesn't turn out so well, as their first encounter with him causes a change to Johnny's molecular structure, rendering him able to swap abilities with his superpowered comrades via physical contact.

Weirdness with Johnny aside, the Four soon feel confident enough to make an attempt at capturing the Surfer. But when their plan goes awry and results in an unbelievable amount of collateral damage, the military brings in someone to assist them: Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon). His unintentional resurrection via the cosmic energy generated by the Surfer's exploits has led Victor to invest all of his time into studying this strange visitor from another world. He's had a breakthrough, too, as he's deduced that the Surfer's powers are drawn from his surfboard. Separate the Surfer from his board, and capturing him will become much easier.

Though the Fantastic Four despises the idea of working alongside their archenemy, Reed and Victor use Victor's theory to develop a tachyon pulse emitter that would knock the Surfer off his board. The emitter proves successful, and the Surfer is taken into military custody. But little does anyone know just how close this puts Victor to fulfilling his hidden agenda of seizing the surfboard's power for himself. And more importantly, there's the revelation that the Silver Surfer's appearance on Earth is but a precursor to the ever-nearing arrival of his master, a planet-consuming entity known as Galactus.

I don't think anyone would accuse Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer of being a great movie. But it really isn't all that bad, either. It's just a matter of understanding who the movie's target demographic is. Is it for the diehard comic book nerds? I sincerely doubt it. But considering that the movie is lighthearted, inoffensive, PG-rated fluff, I'd say that it's more for kids than anyone else. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. Not every superhero movie needs to follow in the nihilistic shoes of The Dark Knight or Watchmen. Sometimes there needs to be a superhero movie that families can go see without worrying about freaking out the kids. In all honesty, the truth of the matter is that I actually thought Rise of the Silver Surfer was entertaining enough for what it was. It wasn't a whole heck of a lot, but it was something.

Tim Story, director of the previous Fantastic Four movie, returns to helm the sequel, and puts forth a bit more effort than he did last time. Unfortunately, his work also seems somewhat pedestrian at times. There's a few instances of well-done cinematography, but Story doesn't really capture the massive, epic quality a story like this could have had. Instead, he just puts the CGI effects on display and lets them direct the course of the movie. Thusly, we end up with a handful of exciting yet forgettable action scenes and a story that doesn't go much of anywhere. It doesn't help that there are quite a few instances where the CGI looks downright crummy, too. I point specifically to Reed's dancing at the beginning of the movie. It's unconvincing, and frankly, it's only befitting that such a lame scene would feature such lame CGI. At least the Silver Surfer looks good, because the whole thing would have gone right down the crapper if he hadn't.

The screenplay, penned by Mark Frost and Don Payne, is a mixed bag, with it's fair share of both solid moments (such as Ben and Johnny teasing one another) and weak moments (like recycling the silly "Sue's naked in public" gag from the first movie). Really, really weak moments. Now I know I said in the opening paragraph that the movie was inspired by the Galactus Trilogy, that may be a lie. Frankly, there don't really seem to be all that many similarities between the comic book story and the movie. Uatu the Watcher is nowhere to be found, and the character of Alicia Masters continues to have absolutely zero purpose (and practically no screen time at all). The power-swapping thing is added, and Doctor Doom is wedged into the movie for no good reason.

And that makes me wonder, did they really need to include Doctor Doom in this movie? Did they think that the giant planet-eating monster and his all-powerful alien sidekick wouldn't pose a big enough threat? He isn't even written as a believable part of the story. It's like the writers said to themselves, "Oh crap, the movie's only going to be an hour long at this rate. We're gonna have to stick Doctor Doom in there and pad this thing out." The addition of such a needless antagonist, along with the movie's comedic undercurrent, really takes away from the gravity of the situation at hand. There's a giant alien on its way to eat Earth, so quit screwing around with the Surfer! Hurry up and start saving the planet!

There's no sense of immediacy to anything in the movie, just a general feeling of, "eh, we'll get there sooner or later." That really sucks, because outside of one or two shots hinting at the eventual coming of Galactus, he's pretty much a non-factor until the last ten or fifteen minutes of the movie. There's no suspense or anything, which is a real letdown. Maybe it's due to studio interference wanting more focus on the Silver Surfer and Doctor Doom, or writers who just don't know what they're doing, but essentially putting Galactus on the sidelines until the end with no strong buildup or anything is lame, lame, lame.

It doesn't help that there's practically no character or plot development at all, either. Seriously, the Silver Surfer is the only one in the movie who has anything resembling a character arc. I understand that in a movie that runs ninety-two minutes, something might have to be sacrificed in order to squeeze in all the cool moments that they want to do. I also understand that the target audience might not particularly care about well-developed characters or stories, but is it too much to ask for three-dimensional characters worth caring about and a plot that does more than go from Point A to Point B without stopping to build things up along the way?

At least Frost and Payne made up for it with characters that are somewhat entertaining. I also liked the way Frost and Payne worked in a product placement gag that didn't feel forced. As opposed to a set decorator plastering corporate logos in the most awkward of places like you'd see in other movies, Frost and Payne instead give us a quick gag where Johnny tries to court endorsement deals with a new outfit that looks more like a NASCAR driver's uniform than a superhero's costume. It's a funny little joke that not only gets the majority of the product placement out of the way (save a cheesy yet amusing moment involving the "Fantasti-Car"), but really makes Johnny an even funnier character.

Frost and Payne also take the opportunity to make a few cracks about our celebrity-obsessed culture. Johnny and Sue deal with the paparazzi in their own ways (Johnny, ever the attention whore, absolutely relishes anything resembling publicity; Sue considers getting out of the superhero game altogether), while news networks overlook actual newsworthy events so they can focus on Reed and Sue's wedding. None of this actually affects the plot in any major way, and the downright unnecessary feeling only makes it seem even more tacked on. So the Fantastic Four have it rough because they're in the public eye, boo freaking hoo. I don't really think the teenage boys this movie is intended for really care that much about a cheap social commentary about the curse of fame. There's a time and a place for that sort of thing, and frankly, I didn't think Rise of the Silver Surfer ended up being either.

And perhaps I should talk about Galactus while I have your attention. When Rise of the Silver Surfer was released, every über-nerd with an Internet connection bitched and moaned until they were blue in the face because of Galactus's depiction as an enormous, malevolent cloud, as opposed to his traditional comic book visage. I don't really see why that's such a big deal. Had they gone with a giant man wearing gladiator armor and a goofy purple Viking helmet, it would probably have gotten laughed off the screen. But as crazy as it's going to sound, a cloud seems oddly believable. I know that sounds insane, considering the wacky powers the lead characters have, but I think it's true. I'm sure that his more recognizable form will wind up in the Silver Surfer's eventual solo movie, but I don't believe it was really needed here.

Then there's the cast. I could probably copy what I said in my review of the previous movie and stick it here without it making a whole lot of difference. If you've seen both movies, you know what I mean. Copying that review would be cheap, though, so I guess I'll be a little more professional than that. Let's hit the negatives first. If movies like Iron Man and The Dark Knight have some of the best casting in the superhero genre, the Fantastic Four movies have some of the worst. Specifically, Julian McMahon. I don't watch Nip/Tuck, so could somebody who does please tell me if this guy has any talent at all? Honestly, these movies could have been so much better had they hired a better actor to play Doctor Doom. McMahon is unconvincing, not intimidating whatsoever, and is definitely the wrong person for the role.

I also continue my belief that Jessica Alba isn't the most believable person they could have cast to play a scientist. She's only slightly more believable than Tara Reid as an archaeologist in Alone in the Dark. But it's kinda hard to take somebody seriously when most of your résumé consists of movies like Good Luck Chuck and The Love Guru. I know that's practically the same joke I made in my review of the first Fantastic Four movie, but it's the truth. At least they leave all the science stuff up to the Reed Richards character, so all she really has to do is deliver her dialogue and look cute. Nobody is ever going to accuse her of being an Oscar-worthy actress, but at least she does the best she can with what she's given.

The rest of the cast, though, is what makes the movie worth watching. Kerry Washington and Andre Braugher are fine in their small, utterly thankless roles. Meanwhile, Ioan Gruffudd does a credible, believable job as the brainy Reed Richards. He's likeable in the role, which helps as the character benefits from writing that is stronger than the previous movie's. Even more likeable are Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis. If McMahon is an example of bad casting, then Evans and Chiklis are the complete opposite. The duo are fun, amiable, and entertaining. Evans and Chiklis are, in my opinion, the biggest reasons to watch either of the Fantastic Four movies. Their back-and-forth banter exhibits an amusing comedic chemistry, and if someone were to hire them to star in a regular comedy, it would be awesome.

Last but not least are the actors playing the Silver Surfer, Doug Jones and Laurence Fishburne. Jones might not get as much as respect as he should, since people tend to overlook motion-capture performances, but his contribution to the movie is solid. I can't complain about Fishburne either, though his cold, nearly monotone line readings sometimes give the impression that he'd swallowed a handful of Valium before entering the recording booth. But perhaps that was his intent all along. The Surfer is a conflicted character, one who serves as the herald of Galactus and condemns planets to their destruction despite the severe emotional toll it takes on him. Perhaps Fishburne chose to deliver his dialogue in such a manner so as to reflect that?

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is one of those rare sequels that is actually better than its predecessor. Then again, it's still a rather mediocre movie. It's unfortunately inconsistent, due to a real lack of balance between its good and bad moments. Don't get me wrong, it's still an entertaining movie if it catches you in the right mood, but it just isn't as solid as it could have been. But as I said, the movie is a marked improvement, so maybe this will mark a trend of steady improvement with each sequel. Maybe if Hollywood keeps it up, they'll eventually arrive at a Fantastic Four movie that's absolutely awesome. But as it stands now, the world is waiting. I'll give Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer three stars. It's a perfectly acceptable way to kill 92 minutes if you're expectations aren't too high.

Final Rating: ***

30 Days of Night (2007)

Vampire stories have been around for centuries. Dating as far back as the 1700s, tales of supernaturally-powered undead beings who imbibe blood for sustenance have become an indelible part of the horror genre and pop culture in general. But by the end of the twentieth century, it was harder and harder to find a truly scary vampire. Joss Whedon and Anne Rice turned them into brooding, brokenhearted, pseudo-Goth sissies with Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Interview with the Vampire, movies like The Lost Boys and Dracula: Dead and Loving It made them comedians, and Wesley Snipes's Blade trilogy transformed them into no-holds-barred action stars. But no matter how they were depicted, they just weren't truly horrifying anymore.

That started to change in 2002, when writer Steve Niles and artist Ben Templesmith created a comic book titled 30 Days of Night. Released by IDW Publishing, the three-issue miniseries was one of IDW's earliest and biggest hits. Its success sparked a handful of sequels and spinoffs, and actually led to a bidding war for the film rights. Sam Raimi came away the big winner, and with Columbia Pictures and Raimi's Ghost House Pictures handling the movie's production, the cinematic adaptation of 30 Days of Night serves notice that vampires are still monsters to be feared.

Welcome to Barrow, Alaska. The northernmost town in the United States, Barrow is preparing for the area's annual month without sunlight. And as part of this preparation, most of the townsfolk are heading south to sunnier climates. Only the bravest people — about 150 of them — choose to remain in Barrow. But while the majority of the town's small population are leaving, one person is doing quite the opposite. A mysterious stranger (Ben Foster) has arrived in Barrow, taunting town sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) with vague yet sinister warnings of a terrible evil whose coming is close at hand.

Little does Eben know just how correct the stranger is. Once the sun sets, Barrow is soon beset upon by a group of vicious, bloodthirsty vampires, whose leader (Danny Huston) has brought them to this isolated location for a month of sunlight-free feeding. They massacre the town, while Eben and his estranged wife Stella (Melissa George) cobble together a small group of survivors and try to make it through the thirty days of night.

I'll admit that I'm not all that much of a vampire connoisseur. I've only seen a small handful of the hundreds of vampire movies that have been made over the years, and by the time I discovered Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, they'd already been cancelled. But my lack of familiarity with the world of undead bloodsuckers didn't stop me from seeing and loving 30 Days of Night. It's a movie that returns vampires back to being scary, like they should be. These are vampires who are monsters in the purest sense of the word. And after seeing the tortured, thoroughly emo vampires put forth by the aforementioned Joss Whedon and Anne Rice, it's refreshing to see vampires who'll rip your throat out without thinking twice about it. These vampires are not a complicated lot; they exist solely to drink blood and frighten audiences. And because of this straightforward way of handling its villains, 30 Days of Night is a success.

A lot of that success comes from the great direction by David Slade. For someone helming only his second feature film, Slade shows a real knack for how to handle things. His previous film, the very awesome Hard Candy, was all about building tension, and Slade continues that — with even more gusto — in his sophomore venture. The movie is chock full of suspense, which Slade effortlessly maintains throughout the movie. The moments of wild mayhem, such as the scene involving a vampire child, are also handled excellently. Meanwhile, Slade has teamed up with cinematographer Jo Willems to create a visually astounding movie, one whose color palate delicately balances between ultra-gloomy grays and splashes of blood red. The colors set the mood, something further established with Willems's great camerawork.

There are numerous scenes that are memorable, but the true standout scene is the initial massacre of Barrow. Viewing the action from overhead, we slowly move through the streets of Barrow as the legion of vampires drag people out of their homes in order to feast upon them. It's a terrifying scene, one that truly stands out as one of modern horror's scariest moments. With a lesser director, these scenes may not have been pulled off as well as they were. But in the hands of Slade, everything falls nicely into place. Though while the movie's visual atmosphere is great, it may not have been as tense had it not been for the music composed by Brian Reitzell. Well, to be completely honest, it isn't so much music as it is ambient sound, with a few string instruments and a piano thrown in for flavor. It's a very minimalist score, one that makes the movie better through its efforts.

Next up is the screenplay, written by Stuart Beattie, Brian Nelson, and the original comic's writer, Steve Niles. Though there are some minor — and ultimately, inconsequential — differences from the source material, the script stays rather faithful to its inspiration. This faithfulness makes for a much different style of vampire movie, and for a much different style of vampire. Garlic, holy water, stakes, and religious iconography are nowhere to be found. Sharp weapons and sunlight prove to be the only defense against these razor-fanged bloodsuckers, and both are in extremely limited quantity. The vampires also have no interest in the propagation of their species, instead preferring to decapitate victims before they can transform into new members of the vampire race. Such originality allows for an aura of unpredictability, especially if you haven't read the comics. These vampires have a viciousness rarely seen nowadays, made much more frightening by the fact that the stereotypical vampire-fighting techniques aren't even referenced.

The script is also more profound than one might give it credit for. Beneath the movie's frightening surface is a moral dilemma: How do you defeat monsters with no soul without losing a piece of your own? The question is never explicitly stated, but this it's something that does seem to be following the character of Eben. Try as he might to protect the group of survivors, it becomes more and more apparent that a sacrifice might be needed, a sacrifice that would carry a heavy price. This subtle theme puts the movie on a different wavelength than much of its other cinematic brethren, something that helps it stand out amongst them.

Last but not least is the movie's cast, who all put forth strong performances. The small supporting cast — primarily Mark Boone Junior, Mark Rendall, and Manu Bennett — are all quite good. I especially thought Bennet was impressive as a survivor who completely loses his mind after the initial vampire attacks. Amongst the lead cast, Danny Huston and Ben Foster are tremendous in their villainous roles. Huston is believably frightening as the leader of the vampire clan, while Foster is convincing as the sleazy little weasel serving as the herald of impending doom. Matter of fact, Foster gives us probably the best performance in the movie. He's really creepy, and is almost worth the price of admission alone.

But that's not to take anything away from the rest of the cast or the two stars, Josh Hartnett and Melissa George. George is warm, likable, and endearing in a role that requires her to be all of those things. Hartnett, meanwhile, is a credible leading man here. Eben Oleson is not an action hero. He's not John McClane or Indiana Jones, he's just a regular guy. That can also be said of Hartnett, who isn't exactly who you'd call an action star. He plays the character realistically, with a confidence that he could survive, but also with an uncertainty that he actually can survive.

30 Days of Night is a horror movie unlike many of the others released nowadays. It has its fair share of violence and gore, but it also remembers to be scary. Many other horror movies forget that, whether they be teen-friendly PG-13 horror movies or R-rated torture porn. My only real complaint is that the perpetual darkness makes it hard to track the passage of time over the course of the movie. Outside of Hartnett's ever-growing five o'clock shadow, you can't really tell if two hours or two weeks have gone by. Maybe that could be intentional, though. Through the eyes of those trying to survive the vampire holocaust, the thirty days of night may start blending together like it does for us viewers. If that isn't the case... bummer. But never let it be said that 30 Days of Night is not an effective horror movie. Now if they could start making more vampire movies like this, that'd be super.

Final Rating: ****

Vacancy (2007)

There are some questions that humankind just may never truly know the answers to. What is the meaning of life? Does God really exist? What purpose do the plastic caps on the tips of shoelaces serve? Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? And perhaps most importantly, how do those cheap roadside motels stay in business? We've all seen them, those sleazy, flophouse lodges that look so deserted that you'd be surprised if there were anybody there besides the poor fool stuck working the front desk.

Apparently, someone in Hollywood thinks they might be doing something to supplement their income. You would think that drugs would be the most obvious answer, but what if it were something much more sinister? That's the basic plot of Vacancy, a horror movie that's better than you'd expect, given its simple plot and very modest gross at the box office. So let's get started with the review, shall we?

Bickering couple David (Luke Wilson) and Amy Fox (Kate Beckinsale) are traveling the back roads of America when their car breaks down. Stranded in the middle of nowhere and in need of a place to spend the night, David and Amy are forced to hike more than a mile to a lonely motel isolated from the rest of the world. The desk clerk on duty, a creepy little weasel named Mason (Frank Whaley), insists on putting them up in the "honeymoon suite," going as far as to offer them a discounted rate on the room. David and Amy take him up on the offer, only to learn that their room is one of the most disgusting places on the face of the planet.

But because this is a horror movie, it's safe to assume that a filthy motel room will be the least of their worries. David starts going through the stack of unlabelled VHS tapes left in the room, finding not the pornography he was hoping for, but instead what initially appears to be homemade slasher movies. But after David and Amy realize that the movies were filmed in the very same room they've checked into, the ugly truth hits them: the tapes feature recordings of legitimate murders. That's when they discover the video cameras hidden throughout the room, quickly realizing what that means for them. So unless they want to become the stars of the motel's next snuff film, they'll have to find a way to escape the killers who are watching their every move.

Vacancy is an incredibly simplistic movie. It takes place in one small location, with only a tiny handful of characters to push things forward. That's the beauty of it, because Vacancy never tries to be anything more than what it is at its core. It doesn't utilize cheap "boo!" scares or gallons of blood and guts like a lot of horror movies nowadays, but instead seeks to frighten those who watch it by using old-school concepts like atmosphere and suspense. Such an approach sets Vacancy apart from other horror movies, and frankly, it's a better movie because of it.

A lot of that is thanks to director Nimród Antal. The movie has little plot or character development, which ultimately leads to a super-streamlined experience that allows Antal and veteran cinematographer Andrej Sekula to utilize every trick they can think of to scare the pants off their audience. The suspense builds and builds throughout the movie's surprisingly short running time, with Antal using Sekula's excitingly creepy camera angles and compositions to build a moody, claustrophobic atmosphere. The scene where unseen stalkers pound on the doors and walls of the motel room is some downright frightening stuff, for sure, and it's all thanks to the talents of Antal and Sekula. Of course, nearly every good horror movie uses music to further hammer home the frights, and Vacancy is no exception. Composer Paul Haslinger's understated music helps to contribute a constant feeling of dread in addition to the already eerie visuals.

I said in the previous paragraph that the movie is light on plot, character development, all that stuff. And that's true, as the script penned by Mark L. Smith has precious little of those things. But to make up for that, Smith gets us into the action quickly and doesn't let up until the end. The lead characters check into the hotel within the first fifteen minutes, and by the end of the movie's initial half-hour, all hell breaks loose. From there, it's frightening scene after frightening scene.

And though Smith has to resort to a few clichés, like masked killers and unresponsive cell phones, he doesn't fall into any of the horror genre's traps. The script offers very few predictable moments, never letting on just who will live and who will die. Nearly every moment is a surprise, which makes them all the more scary. Even the movie's off-putting abrupt ending works, because even though an epilogue would be accepted, we the viewer can live without it.

And let's not forget the cast, which is quite small. The two lead characters are by themselves for much of the movie, and both of their actors are up to task. Luke Wilson comes across as a likable jerk for the early part of the movie, before he steps up as the take-charge kind of guy you'd expect to see in a horror movie. He does a fine job in the role, though I must admit that I'm not used to seeing him in anything that isn't a comedy.

The other half of the movie's equation, Kate Beckinsale, also puts forth a good performance. Word is that Beckinsale was cast as a replacement for Sarah Jessica Parker, who was originally cast as the movie's female lead. That's a replacement I can get behind, because not only is Beckinsale easier on the eyes than Parker, but she's a better actress than Parker as well. Anyway, Beckinsale's character is kind of a bitch for a good portion of the movie, but she is still very good in the role. Even at her bitchiest, she still makes you care about the character. And even if you don't care for her in the movie, it'd still be fun to cheer for the killers. Watching movies like this and cheering for the killers is part of the fun, right?

Speaking of killers, Frank Whaley's part is a relatively modest one when compared to Wilson and Beckinsale's, but his work here is one of the creepiest horror movie performances in a while. He's downright unsettling when he really gets going, giving off the impression that he'd be what would happen if Ned Flanders from The Simpsons went absolutely insane. And though he's stuck in an incredibly thankless role, Ethan Embry is spooky as a mechanic the lead characters encounter at the beginning of the movie. Though he makes a more menacing contribution to the movie by the end of it, he only has one scene in which he gets to do any actual acting, making his role a glorified cameo more than anything else.

Vacancy clocks in at a brisk 85 minutes, allowing it to get in, have its way with the place, and make a run for it before wearing out its welcome. But it's such a tense, fast-paced experience, you almost don't want it to end. It's suspenseful and scary from start to finish, something quite a few horror movies nowadays can't say they are. It's a real downer that Vacancy didn't make more of a splash at the box office, because movies like this only come along once in a blue moon. The Pinewood Motel might not be the grand successor to the Bates Motel, but I'm sure it will work in a pinch.

Final Rating: ***½

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2007)

Regular readers of my reviews have probably realized that I really like horror movies. And while I enjoy pretty much all types of them, I have a certain affection for the various slasher movies that populated the genre during the '80s. And although there was a slight renaissance after the release of Scream in 1996, slasher movies have effectively become a dying breed. Slasher movies are so few and far between that they've nearly become extinct.

But that's not to say nobody makes them anymore. It's just a matter of finding them. One that's relatively obscure is Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, a little flick that could be classified as the horror genre's equivalent of This Is Spinal Tap. Behind the Mask was released in a mere seventy-two theaters last year, and the only way you'd have heard of it is if you're a patron of some of the big-name horror movie websites. But its obscurity is in no way indicative of its quality, because it's one heck of a fun movie.

Imagine, if you will, a world in which horror movie villains like Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, and Freddy Krueger not only exist, but are the most prolific serial killers on the face of the planet. In this world, even psychos like them will inspire people to follow in their footsteps.

One such follower is Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel), a wannabe killer who lives on the outskirts of Glen Echo, Maryland. Taking his name from a local urban legend about a killer who fell victim to vigilante justice, Leslie has allowed filmmaker Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals) and her crew to follow him as he prepares to enter what he calls the "business of fear."

As the movie progresses, Leslie brings the crew along for the ride. He relays the tricks of the trade, such as the intense training regimen he's developed to help him effortlessly chase victims on the run. He gives the crew a tour around his supposed childhood home, an abandoned farmhouse that he's booby-trapped for maximum murdering potential. He introduces them to Eugene (Scott Wilson), a retired killer who Leslie regularly turns to for advice.

He has them accompany him while stalking a young woman named Kelly (Kate Long Johnson), whom Leslie has picked to be his "survivor girl." Taylor and her crew are even privy to Leslie's first tangle with Dr. Halloran (Robert Englund), an incident that Leslie celebrates as the revealing of his "Ahab," the bastion of good that is unrelenting in his quest to end Leslie's rampage. But when the massacre finally gets underway, Taylor and her crew decide they can no longer sit and watch, and must intervene before a group of innocent teenagers are slaughtered.

The thing about horror/comedies is that most of them don't really work. Either they can't find a proper balance between the elements that comprise them, or the straightforward factor that they just plain suck. That isn't the case with Behind the Mask. It's one of those rare blends of horror and humor than actually results in a good movie.

What makes it work is that it's both an amusing satire of genre conventions, and an effective slasher film in its own right. Behind the Mask, unlike many other recent parodies and satires, shows affection for the movies that inspired it. It doesn't wish to mock the movies it makes reference to, but instead pay its respect by giving funny explanations for many of the genre's most enduring tropes and clichés. And as the movie transitions from satire to straightforward slasher movie, it maintains the humor while working in some well-done scares and suspense.

Director Scott Glosserman does a fine job in this, his feature film debut. The documentary-style approach is a novel idea, one that makes for a very entertaining, unique movie. It takes things to a more intimate level, making the viewer part of the action. When the movie actually adopts a more traditional filmmaking style during the final half-hour of the movie, that intimacy remains with fantastic camera work by cinematographer Jaron Presant. His shots are tight and combined with brisk editing, thus helping to create a tense atmosphere that betters the movie.

I also applaud the music composed by Gordy Haab. Music in movies should be used to enhance the visuals they're backing, and Haab's music does exactly that. And whoever had the idea to play "Psycho Killer" by the Talking Heads over the closing credits is an absolute genius. That was a brilliant touch, if I do say so myself.

The screenplay, written by Glosserman and David Stieve, is also quite good. It boasts a sharp wit that makes even the goofiest "wink wink, nudge nudge" gags work. It's a neat concept, a mockumentary offering playful explanations for nearly every slasher movie convention you could think of.

The script also toys with these conventions, using them in ways that are familiar yet unexpected. And though the twist near the end may be somewhat predictable, the viewer is so wrapped up in the movie by that point that it isn't really that big of a deal. It also helps that the script features snappy, intelligent, and humorous dialogue, something you don't really see in slasher movies that aren't named "Scream."

Last but not least is the cast, all of whom are great. But truth be told, with the exception of the two leads and two supporting actors, the rest of the cast gets precious little screen time. It doesn't really matter, since those four are enough to carry the movie.

But let's go with the smaller roles first. Up first is Robert Englund, who channels the spirit of Donald Pleasence in a likable performance. I also thought Zelda Rubenstein of Poltergeist fame did a fine job in her cameo as an exposition-spouting librarian. Kate Long Johnson is humorous, as are Ben Pace and Britain Spellings, who play the documentary's cameraman and sound guy

But we can't forget those other four actors. The two primary supporting actors, Scott Wilson and Bridgett Newton, are incredibly entertaining as Leslie's mentor and his wife. Wilson is amiable yet creepy in the role, while Newton's enthusiastic performance is a pleasure.

The real standouts of the cast, however, are the leads, Nathan Baesel and Angela Goethals. During the documentary portion of the movie, Goethals delivers her dialogue in a stilted, pretentious fashion. It's as if she were imitating every similarly pompous film school documentarian. But once things start going crazy, Goethals changes into a tough, able heroine.

Her effective performance is two sides of the same coin, which is the exact same thing I can say about Baesel. His performance is nothing short of awesome. Playing Leslie Vernon as what would happen if Jim Carrey became a serial killer, Baesel's charming, likable, and funny. But just as Goethals's character goes through a transformation, so does Baesel's. Once he puts on his mask and slips into full killer mode, he becomes scary and intimidating. The layered performance really allows Baesel to steal the entire movie. If you need one reason at all to see Behind the Mask, it's Nathan Baesel.

The year 1992 saw the release of Man Bites Dog, a Belgian mockumentary about a film crew following a serial killer. But while that movie was mostly serious, Behind the Mask is a more light-hearted affair. Sure, it's still a horror movie, but it's one that will put a smile on your face. With a talented cast and an obvious love for the genre, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is a movie that's definitely worth your time. As a fan of slasher movies, I definitely approve.

Final Rating: ****