Aliens Verses Predator: Requiem (2007)

The Movie: On a Predator spaceship carrying, among other things, live facehuggers; an alien/Predator hybrid is born. It quickly slaughters the ship’s crew and causes the vehicle to crash on a certain, familiar blue planet; just outside the small town of Gunnison, Colorado. However, one of the Predators manages to get off a distress signal just before it gets killed. The signal contacts some kind of specialist on the homeworld, who immediately heads for Earth.

The Predator specialist arrives pretty quickly, especially considering the interstellar distances that must be involved, and immediately sets to work hunting down the hybrid and “cleaning up” evidence of the presence of both kinds of aliens. Unfortunately, despite his speedy arrival, the hybrid and facehuggers have been very busy infecting the nearby small town.

In Gunnison, we are introduced to the lives who are about to have a nasty collision with cosmic horror. Ex-con Dallas Howard (Steven Pasquale) has just come home from prison; where the first person to greet him is his old friend Eddie Morales (John Ortiz), who also happens to be the sheriff. He also reunites with his teenage brother, Ricky (Johnny Lewis). Ricky has his own problems; he’s not so secretly pining for his old friend and classmate Jesse (Kristen Hager). Unfortunately, she’s currently dating Dale (David Paetkau); living, breathing, concrete evidence of the gods’ high support for birth control. Dale and his friends have long been going out of their way to make Ricky’s life a living hell. Also important for our concerns is Kelly O’Brian (Reiko Aylesworth); a war vet just coming home to her husband, Tim (Sam Trammell), and young daughter, Molly (Ariel Gade).

These two sets of homecomings arrive just in the nick of time to see it all go to Hell. Within a day of his arrival, Howard winds up having to give support to Morales; his old friend suddenly finding himself way over his head with a rash of mysterious disappearances and brutal killings. The situation exacerbates quickly; and as the two sets of extraterrestrials square off, the citizens of Gunnison are quickly caught in the middle of a very horrible situation that they have no reference for. And, while there is a military base nearby; this is definitely not the cavalry Gunnison is so desperately hoping for…

The Review: Before I begin my review, I would like to announce that this blog has now been up and running for two full years! It is still very much a work in progress and I have no clue where it will ultimately end up. Still, I’m very proud of what I’ve accomplished thus far. Those of you who have been with me in that time, I am grateful for your patronage. Those of you who are reading this for the first time; I would just like to take this moment to point out that it’s now way too late to turn back, and that you might as well surrender now and save yourself the trouble. Bwahahaha!

I saw Alien Verses Predator: Requiem in the theater with a friend; and I think that what we really found appalling was that the people in front of us had brought their young daughter. The kid couldn’t have been more than four or five years old. Thing is, I found this movie pretty damn scary. Now, I’m a grown man and well aware that what’s on screen is not necessarily what happens in life. In fact, due to my fascination with movies and mildly obsessive nature, I have a better idea how it’s put on the screen in the first place than your average Joe. Also, having watched horror movies (and sometimes, worse) for around two decades now, I’m a bit jaded about what I see in my films. If I could find this movie scary despite all that, I can only imagine what it would have been like for a five year-old.

As I haven’t done any formal research on this you’ll have to take it with a grain of salt, but I suspect that the idea for this particular franchise matchup began with the movie Predator 2; where a brief, throwaway look at the Predator’s trophy room shows us the skull of the thing from the Alien movies among the other trophies. Throughout the 1990s I can remember Alien verses Predator matchups in paperback fiction, comic books, and video games; some of which weren’t half bad. It wasn’t until 2004 however until an actual Alien Verses Predator movie was released; and it was universally derided. Having not seen it for myself, I am in no position to specify the reasons for this; but the fact that it’s a PG-13 movie about two sets of R-rated monsters is most likely a good place to start.

Requiem came out three years later; again to near-universal derision. However, after watching it for myself I really couldn’t see why. Requiem is far from being a great work of art, or even a great movie in general. However, it is definitely one of the best attempts at a horror film I’ve seen come out of a major studio in a very long time.

First is the handling of the two franchise monsters. Now, I have long found the eponymous ‘aliens’ of that franchise to be particularly scary. In fact, they have made guest appearances in my nightmares as recently as the last few years. Just the look of them is terrifying, even when seen directly; something that can be said about very few movie monsters. Even more so is their very nature; these are things that use human beings as breeding vessels.

In recent years, the studios have made the major mistake of downgrading them; reducing the aliens from something straight out of one’s nightmares into mere monsters. This was especially obvious in the fourth movie of the franchise. However, Requiem doesn’t do this. Instead, the monsters are every bit as terrifying and nightmarish as they should be. Even the “predalien” works on this level. In appearance it is every bit as scary as its conventional brethren (okay, maybe the dreadlocks are a little goofy); and besides being bigger, stronger, and more dangerous in general, it also has a particularly disturbing new variation on the creatures’ method of reproduction. I just don’t understand why they had to make it a hybrid; just a run-of-the-mill uber-alien would have worked every bit as well. In short, however, the aliens come across as they should. Not as mere monsters to be fought, but a cosmic cancer that threatens anything it comes into contact with.

The Predator specialist is equally effective. It’s vaguely humanoid, but it is most definitely not human. When it is on the screen, we never have any narrative device telling us what it is doing. Instead, we have to determine purely by watching it. And, while there are a few minor humanish traits (I thought the brief show of sorrow it displays upon finding its dead companion in the crash was a nice touch), overall it is definitely a very inhuman creature. What I, personally, found most chilling was one particular angle to its actions that I could relate to. All throughout history there have been political, military and/or corporate messes that the offending organization tries to quietly “clean up”, but that ultimately do the most harm to individuals whose only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Predator, through its actions, is pretty much the apotheosis of these kinds of incidents.

The biggest element that I thought made Requiem work best as a horror movie was the simple fact that nobody was safe. They actually cack a kid at the beginning of the film; and there’s a scene of the hybrid rampaging through a maternity ward that I was shocked the studio let into this movie at all, much less into the theatrical release. Now, to stave off any misunderstandings from my readers, let me state for the record that I do not advocate or enjoy violence against children, pregnant women, or anyone, really. That is not my point at all.

My point is that the horror genre depends upon suspense to work. Particularly in survival horror, the subgenre into which this movie falls, the point of the story revolves around the suspense of whether or not the protagonist(s) will survive the horror. In the past two decades or so, Hollywood movie studios have been populating their horror movies with individuals that might as well have either big, glowing targets on their ass; or glowing neon signs over their heads that say “invulnerable, don’t even bother.” In short, we practically start out knowing who will survive and who won’t; who’s off limits to the monster and who’s fair game. There is no suspense whatsoever when you are fully aware of what will happen ahead of time.

With Requiem’s first two victims, a hunter and his son who witness the spaceship crash, the movie is effectively telling us in the audience “there is no safety net here. None of these characters are safe; none of them are off limits.” And it follows through admirably. While there are plenty of raw meat characters, individuals whose presence here is solely to up the body count, several of our protagonists get taken out as well; even ones we would expect to be off limits. This really ups the suspense, because it leaves us with no certainty who, if anyone, will survive.

One of the more common complaints about Requiem is that most of the characters and subplots feel like they wondered in from another movie entirely. Admittedly there is some truth to this; and none of the characters or actors are particularly memorable, in either a positive or negative fashion. But, I find that this sense of displacement nicely adds to the suspense. It’s clear that they are outmatched, outnumbered and outgunned; even the military vet back from war is in over her head and well aware of it. None of these people are really suited to handle the situation; which makes it even more uncertain whether or not they’ll survive it.

Also, the contrived movie romantic triangle between Ricky, Jesse and Dale the asshole is played a little differently from what we are led by other movies to expect. For one, Dale and his pack’s bullying of Ricky has a nastier, more realistic edge; I actually found myself wondering if they would kill him before the xenos got the opportunity. What’s more, the romantic subplot sets us up for a nasty plot twist that I, for one, never saw coming. The only real thing I find I agree with the naysayers of Requiem on is that there are too many scenes with insufficient lighting, so that it’s sometimes hard to see what’s going on.

Ultimately, Alien Verses Predator: Requiem is crap. However, any true B-movie fan will tell you that there are universes worth of difference between good crap and bad crap; and I would place it in the former category. Setting aside its obvious status as an attempt for a big studio to cash in on two popular franchises; Requiem is at its core a B-exploitation movie done on a big studio budget. The only real purpose of this movie is to scare the living Hell out of you, and I think it does a good job at that. Give this one a try if you’re in the mood for a relatively brainless, yet decent and fairly effective horror movie.

Shiver of the Vampires (1971)

The Movie: We open with a black and white view of a funeral for several people, with two unnamed girls (Marie-Pierre Castel, one half of the delectable Castel twins, and Kuelan Herce) standing silent witness. Later, said girls are sitting around a castle looking bored, and decide to take a trip to one of the towers. There they encounter two dying men, chained up and with stakes in their chests. One of the men warns the girls to take his stake after he has perished, and go put a permanent end to “Them.” However, he warns that the girls only have until nightfall; and adds that should they be too late, they should offer themselves as servants, thereby ensuring their own lives. As it’s not quite ten minutes into the film, you can probably guess how that turns out.

An undisclosed, though undoubtedly fairly small, amount of time later; Isle (the lovely Sandra Julien), and Antoine (Jean-Marie Durand), a young just-married couple, are on their way to Italy for their honeymoon. Along the way they intend to stop at the local castle and visit Isle’s two cousins (Jacques Robiolles and Michel Delahaye), who are her only still-living relatives, and who she hasn’t seen in years. When the couple asks directions in the village they are told that the two men are dead; but at the castle the two servants inform them that no, they aren’t dead at all, and that everything is prepared for the newlyweds.

It turns out that Isle’s cousins were actually great vampire hunters, but that they have recently been turned into the creatures themselves by the vampire Isolde (Dominique). Now all three vampires, but particularly Isolde, have plans for Isle; ones that, unfortunately for Antoine, she seems more and more receptive to as time goes on. Antoine has some potential allies in his fight to take his wife back from the monsters, but even then it looks to only end in tragedy for the young couple…

The Review: If you’re into movies with a very strong dose of the weird, the bizarre, the erotic, the Fantastique, or that otherwise engage the emotions that Hollywood shies away from; it’s hard to do much better than the works of the late French director Jean Rollin. Rollin was an artist with his own unique vision; one that he worked hard and made sacrifices to bring to the screen. His best works (and even many of his more obviously flawed offerings) play like they were shot in a dream; scenes straight from the realms of the subconscious that have a bizarre logic all their own, and that resonate emotionally with the viewer on a far deeper level than most movies have any hope of coming close to.

Shiver of the Vampires, one of my personal favorites of Rollin’s movies, also happens to be one of his earliest. If memory serves, it was his third general release. Watching this movie, it is clear that this is an amateur effort. Now, I’m not saying that in a bad way; Shiver is a very well made piece of work. I describe it as ‘amateur’ in that this is a work that is very obviously from early in an artist’s career. This is the point where the artist in question is familiar enough with the basics of his medium to create a competent piece; but is now playing with those basics, tweaking them, experimenting to see what it’s possible to do with them and how he can use them toward creating his own unique artistic vision.

This experimental quality is very evident all throughout the film. For example, the aesthetics are quite unique from what I’ve seen in other movies. In fact, Shiver of the Vampires looks a lot like how I’d expect a gothic horror put together by hippies to turn out; the colored lights used to illuminate the nighttime scenes, the rock score, the styles of the two male vampires (that’s right, there are euro-hippie vampires). However, overall Rollin is able to blend the two seemingly disparate sets of aesthetics and make it work. There are only a few places where the experimenting doesn’t quite work. The one off the top of my head is a tracking shot used throughout the film, where the camera follows a character or characters around in a circular motion. It always stops just short of motion sickness, but it could have been dropped after the first or second time.

Shiver was made on a fairly low budget, but it’s hard to tell by looking at it. One of Rollin’s greatest strengths in all of his movies that I have seen is his masterful use of location shots. Now admittedly, he has a bit of an advantage there. Europe is full of ruined castles and large cemeteries, and the majority of euro-horror films I have seen have made use of them. Not only that, but even the most ineptly made of them that I have born witness to have been unable to detract entirely from the atmosphere of the ruins.

Rollin, however; whether ancient ruins or modern buildings, had a real knack for wringing every bit of atmosphere he could out of wherever he was shooting, and incorporating it into his movies. In Shiver he makes adroit use of both the ruined castle and the old cemetery where the majority of the movie takes place; as well as a certain beach, present in many of his films, where we witness the tragic ending.

One thing that I find interesting about Rollin’s movies is his depiction of vampires. Vampirism was a favorite theme of Rollin’s, and it was the core of many of his plots. However, whatever variations on the theme Rollin used, I’ve noticed a few things all his movie vampires seem to have in common. First of all; even when Rollin romanticized his vampires or played them for sympathy, it is still clear that they are monsters. They may be monsters against their will (a la Lips of Blood), but there is a clear distinction between not evil and not dangerous; and being the former doesn’t necessarily guarantee the latter. Secondly, Rollin’s vampires are always outsiders; and not in the tragically hip way. In Rollin’s cosmos; even when vampirism is actively sought by the protagonist, it is always an irrevocable act that forever separates you from normal humanity.

The vampires in Shiver are particularly interesting. When we first meet them they are sympathetic, and even kind of goofy. The scene where the young couple first sits down to dinner with Isle’s cousins is hilarious; the two men giving this long-winded lecture on their studies, constantly posturing, interrupting each other, and ending each other’s sentences. The two actors play off each other beautifully. However, as the two vampires come to accept and even embrace their new nature, they become less sympathetic and more monstrous. When we reach the point just before the climax when all masks are dropped and they are lecturing Antoine on how he should be feeling pity for them instead of anger, I rather find them downright repulsive.

Isolde is even more interesting as the main villain. Rollin was strongly influenced by surrealism; and most of the surreal elements in Shiver revolve specifically around her. Isolde’s entrances are always dramatically bizarre; slinking out of grandfather clocks and popping down chimneys. At one point she even kills a victim with spiked nipple-caps. It’s almost as if Isolde is an avatar for the things in this world that are terrifying because there is no sense or logic to them. Dominique also adds to the character of Isolde with her looks; she possesses unconventional features that can switch from exotically sexy to downright terrifying depending on the situation.

Finally, there are our two young lovers caught in this dreadful mess. Rollin’s movies tend to revolve more on emotion than dialogue; and in particular he focused a lot on the emotion of loneliness. In Shiver, the horror, sadness and loneliness of the story comes mainly from how the vampires come between the young couple and destroy their relationship. Julien and Durand do a perfect job of portraying the strain and awkwardness that is increasingly interfering with Isle’s and Antoine’s new marriage. It is hard not to feel for Antoine as dark influences take his love away from him and he is unable to do anything about it.

Of course, some of my readers will want to know about the exploitation elements of the movie. Shiver of the Vampires is usually billed as an exploitation movie, and it does deliver on some of the goods. On the one hand, there is very little violence, and what we are given is very discreet. However, this being a Jean Rollin movie there is plenty of female nudity; from Dominique’s outfits, to the translucent veils worn by the servants that Rollin put on a lot of his female characters, to Sandra Julien constantly wandering around in the buff. I ain’t complaining. I should point out, though, that aside from one very brief throwaway scene, it tends to be less tawdry and more chaste and artistic.

In conclusion, Shiver of the Vampires is an odd, experimental, artistic movie that serves as a great example of Rollin’s oeuvre. Beautiful and bizarre, sensual and surreal; watch this one if you’re after something different.

Ravenous (1999)

The Movie: Second Lieutenant John Boyd (Guy Pearce of the Hurt Locker and the 2002 Time Machine Remake) is at a major dinner in his honor to celebrate his promotion to captain and award for bravery during a battle of the Mexican-American War. However, his reaction to the rare steaks being served (puking his guts out) indicates to the arrogant General Slauson (John Spencer of the Rock) that something is wrong. When questioned, Boyd explains to his superiors that he actually acted out of extreme cowardice during the battle. Seeing that his regiment was badly outnumbered and outgunned, Boyd just lay down and played dead while all the rest of the men were slaughtered. Loaded up on a wagon with the dead, Boyd spent some time with his superior officer’s blood falling into his mouth and down his throat. Suddenly, he felt a rush of bravery and courage; which prompted him to jump out of the wagon and singlehandedly capture the enemy command.

Boyd’s superiors decide to promote him anyway. As they point out, they could shoot him; but as he singlehandedly captured the enemy command, they fear it would set a bad precedent. Boyd is then assigned to Fort Spencer, a fort in the Sierra Nevada mountain range that’s a stopover point for one of the wagon train routes. However, as the mountain paths are blocked in the winter, it only has a skeleton staff. Due to this, Fort Spencer is used as a holding pen for individuals the army doesn’t have a use for.

Boyd has seven co-inhabitants at Fort Spencer. Colonel Hart (Jeffry Jones, who you’ll probably recognize from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Howard the Duck, among many other movies), the fort commander, is a good natured intellectual; the kind of person I would love to have as a superior, but definitely not fit for military life. Private Toffler (Jeremy Davies) is a religious fanatic who is severely lacking in speaking ability. (Incidentally, on my latest viewing of the movie his behavior reminded me greatly of a particular individual I have to work with at present; and that realization came with a very inappropriate glee at his demise. Probably best not to dwell on it any further.) Private Reich (Neal McDonough of Minority Report and the most recent Captain America movie) is the fort’s “real soldier” and a loose cannon. Major Knox (Stephen Spinella), Fort Spencer’s second in command “never met a bottle he didn’t like.” Private Cleaves (David Arquette, of Scream and the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie) isn’t much different, except that he prefers local drugs. Finally, George (Joseph Running Fox) and his sister, Martha (Sheila Tousey of Lord of Illusions), are Fort Spencer’s resident Indians and serve as its housekeepers.

Just as Boyd starts to settle into the routine at Fort Spencer, an obviously starved and exhausted stranger (Robert Carlyle of Transpotting and 28 Days Later) stumbles in. He introduces himself as the Reverend Colghoun, who was traveling to California with a small wagon train guided by one Colonel Ives. Unfortunately, Ives was a horrible guide and got the travelers caught in the mountains just as winter began. When the food quickly ran out the travelers first ate all the animals, then their belts and shoes, and then the first of their number to die of starvation. That’s when the real horror began; Ives discovered that he loved the taste of human flesh and began to kill and devour his fellow travelers one by one. Colghoun left when he realized that only he and a woman named Mrs. McReady were left.

Unfortunately, the job of Fort Spencer’s staff is to protect the wagon trains through the pass, and Hart has no choice but to organize a search party. However, Colghoun’s story triggered something in George. He tells Hart and Boyd about the Windigo, a local Indian legend. When a man eats another man’s flesh, he also absorbs a bit of his soul as well, making him stronger. However, it also makes him insatiably hungry for more; ever consuming, ever growing stronger and hungrier. Hart dismisses George’s story, but Boyd pays more attention. After all, the only act of courage in his life came after he had consumed the blood and flesh of a much braver man.

Sure enough, Colghoun’s behavior grows more disturbing the closer the rescue party gets to the cave where the travelers took refuge. Boyd and Reich discover, too late, that there is one more body than Colghoun’s story indicated, and Colghoun springs his trap. Boyd finds himself the only survivor; trapped in a pit for a significant amount of time with a broken leg and the body of Private Reich. However, Boyd finds that eating helps his wound to heal faster…

When Boyd finally makes it back to Fort Spencer, it’s bad enough that not only will nobody believe him; but that they think he’s somehow responsible. It’s much worse when he is introduced to Hart’s replacement, a very familiar man who now goes by the name of Colonel Ives. But on top of all this, Boyd’s own hunger is starting to grow…

The Review:

“Funny thing; you escape the world, you wind up here, then you turn right around and try to escape this place. Frightening thing about escape, though; chance you might wind up someplace worse."
-Colonel Hart

I can remember when Ravenous made its short theatrical run around the middle of my high school years. I was caught by the poster with its tagline “you are who you eat;” and I got to see a preview for it which further wetted my curiosity. A few years later I finally checked it out from the video store, and I found it a decent little film. However, over the years I have found Ravenous to be one of those movies that I can appreciate much more than I did upon first viewing.

Ravenous uses the legend of the Wendigo, also known as Windigo and by many other names, a being that appears in the legends of many of the Native American groups of what are now Canada and the northern United States. Obviously there are many cultural variations on the legend, and there have been further mutations as more recent artists of various kinds have gotten a hold of it. However, at its core the Wendigo is a personification of hunger, starvation, and the horrors of winter. Even at its most benign the Wendigo is an inhuman, unpredictable being; and in most sources it is an evil and ravenous monster. And according to many of the old legends, there are various ways to change one into a Wendigo, or at least bring possession by it; the simplest and most disturbing being the consumption of human flesh.

For obvious reasons, the Wendigo provides a good monster for a horror story. Ravenous makes great use of the various potentials for horror the creature provides. On the visceral level, with one exception, the movie is effectively scary when it needs to be. The soundtrack, while unconventional, mostly conveys the needed emotion effectively. Ditto the shots of the snow-covered mountains and forests; at times it’s very easy to believe that a hungry monster lives in this wilderness.

Ravenous also works on the level of psychological and moral horror. Our hero, Boyd, is a cowardly man who is suddenly presented with everything he’s ever wanted. He, too, can be strong, brave and healthy; all he has to do is something unconscionable. Added to this is the fact that Boyd is constantly in a position of weakness due to his refusal to indulge in cannibalism; and that there is a part of him that actively craves it despite his misgivings. Ultimately, the tension hinges just as much on Boyd’s ability to make the right decision as it does on whether or not he can stop Ives. “If you die first,” Ives tells Boyd in the climactic struggle, “I’m definitely going to eat you. But I wonder; if I die first, what will you do?”

Thirdly, Ravenous also uses wendigoism to make a sharp satirical point by equating it with Manifest Destiny. For those of you who slept during history class, Manifest Destiny was a philosophy during the middle of the 19th century that maintained the United States had a god-given mandate to possess and dominate all the land between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It was the rallying cry of western expansion, and the reason nearly all the native cultures were uprooted and/or wiped out.

I’m not just reading the equation of the Wendigo with Manifest Destiny into the movie either, there are several parts that rather blatantly do just that. In the scene where George tells Boyd and Hart about the Wendigo legend, Hart responds “nobody does this now, do they?” George’s response is to point out that the white man eats the body and blood of Jesus Christ every Sunday. Later on, Ives gives a truly wonderful little monologue where he describes Manifest Destiny in terms of wendigoism. Finally there is how Ives’ plan for his position at Fort Spencer uses the westward expansion for his own ends, and the implied fate of General Slauson.

The thing is, the Wendigo is an apt metaphor for this time in America’s history. It is something that devours, and gains strength from what it eats, but can never consume enough. At one point Ives quotes Benjamin Franklin: “eat to live, don’t live to eat;” with the supreme irony of him using that quote being that Ives does exactly that. The land greed of the U.S. at the time could rightly be viewed the same way; the drive to claim it solely to claim it.

And it could actually fit into modern culture as well. All throughout its history the U.S. has had an undercurrent of greed for material possessions and conspicuous consumption running through it; and in the past few decades that undercurrent has become an overcurrent. “Greed is good,” the Reagan Era philosophy that currently energizes the Right; or “trample the weak,” as Ted Nugent put it when addressing one of their political events. “Windigo never gives, he only takes,” Martha tells Boyd when he asks; and I would say that’s a pretty apt description of our economic system as it currently stands. Look at our culture today; our economic system depends entirely upon the public’s hunger for useless crap that they don’t really need, a tiny elite benefits most from it, and the weak get devoured by the system. Hell, Ives’ plan is as good a representation as any of what the 1% is doing, except that I don’t think they’re literally eating people. Yet.

In regards to acting, the cast as a whole runs from good to amazing. However, the three standouts are Pearce, Carlyle and Jones. Pearce does wonderfully as the flawed, conflicted Captain Boyd who is our hero. Carlyle does equally good as a villain; terrifying, genteel, or charmingly sinister in turn. Finally, Hart is always very fun and likeable, even when… nah, not going to spoil it. Also, Carlyle and Hart get the lion’s share of the movie’s best lines, and they deliver them perfectly.

Overall, Ravenous is a great movie; but I can still find three major flaws. Firstly, the dialogue frequently has major anachronisms; although they may not be as noticeable if you’re not a history or language nerd. Secondly, there is one scene where the soundtrack is all wrong; cheerful banjo music during one of the horror scenes that undermines it. Finally, during the opening credits; where they start with a quote from Nietzsche, and then “eat me,” as quoted by “Anonymous” suddenly pops up.

This last one is a flaw because it could give viewers the wrong idea; make them think they’re watching a screwball comedy. Ravenous is not a comedy. It is a very funny movie at parts, and has a very definite and clever sense of humor. However, Ravenous is first and foremost a horror movie; and once the horror starts the humor is carefully placed aside.

Still, for its flaws Ravenous is ultimately a well-made and enjoyable movie. It’s well made, even more so when you consider that this was apparently put together by a novice director and first-time screenwriter. Ultimately we wind up with a well made, intelligent, movie that is in turns funny and scary, and that boasts an experienced and talented cast. So come on, try the stew. I promise you’ll be hungry for more…

Shortbus (2006)

The Movie: Sofia Lin (Sook-Yin Lee) works as a couple’s counselor/sex therapist in New York City. She has her first session with “the Jamies”, a gay couple; Jamie (PJ DeBoy), a former child star, and James (Paul Dawson), a former prostitute. The two are seeing her because James has suggested that he and Jamie open up their relationship to sex with other people. Unfortunately, it gets heated between Sofia and Jamie, and she snaps. It turns out Sofia has been having problems as well; she’s never had an orgasm, and it’s causing friction between her and her husband, Rob (Raphael Barker).

To help her, the Jamies suggest she join them in a visit to the Shortbus; a downtown club owned and run by Justin Bond (the drag performance artist, playing himself), which every week holds a combination social, artistic and sexual get-together. At the club, Sofia strikes up a friendship with the prickly, socially awkward dominatrix, Severin (Lindsay Beamish); while the Jamies begin a relationship with the ex-model and aspiring singer, Ceth (Jay Brannan, and it’s pronounced “Seth”).

But despite these early successes, it’s not going to be that easy for our protagonists. Sofia’s orgasm continues to remain elusive, greatly increasing her frustration. James has some serious demons from his past that he has to face, and the movie project he obsessively works on is far more than it might first appear. Also, unbeknown to him and his boyfriends, James has a stalker (Peter Stickles). All of these lives and their issues are on a collision course as they desperately seek out that all-important human connection.

The Review:

“You’ve heard of the big yellow school bus, well this is the short one. It’s a salon for the gifted and challenged.”
-Justin Bond

It is spring ladies and gentlemen! Ah, glorious spring, my favorite of the seasons; how I have missed you! To celebrate, this blog is doing another double feature. Presented here are two movies that deal with the real reason for the season. And what is said reason, you ask? Why procreation of course; this is the time of year when all life focuses on the act of reproduction. But these two films are anything but mere porn or sexploitation; that would be way too easy. Intrigued? Then read on.

I have a tendency to pick out a large number of my Netflix movies on a momentary whim; and as a result I’m constantly receiving movies that I don’t remember when or why I chose them, much less what I’m going to see. Obviously, this means I often wind up watching a lot of crap that I’m unprepared for. However, every so often I discover a particularly delightful gem that I otherwise wouldn’t have known about. Shortbus falls into this latter category.

Now the make or break aspect of Shortbus for most people is the sex, so I’ll just get it out of the way right now. Shortbus is full of graphic depictions of unsimulated sex, both hetero and homosexual; as well as ejaculation and other body functions. As a result, watching it will, at times, make a lot of people uncomfortable. That’s certainly my personal experience. As I’ve mentioned before in other reviews, my attitude towards other peoples’ sex lives can generally be summed up “if it doesn’t involve me, I’m not interested.” Likewise; while I’m secure enough in my own sexuality to not have a problem with the fact that other men have sex with each other, that doesn’t necessarily mean I want to watch it happen. However, I have seen enough smut, sleaze and serious art films that I can usually figure out what I’m watching pretty quickly; and Shortbus falls squarely into that third category. Furthermore, once you get past your initial discomfort over the sex, it’s actually a particularly sweet and enjoyable little movie.

So what’s the difference? Very simply, it’s not the sex itself that determines whether a movie is sleaze or art; it’s what the movie does with it. If the whole purpose is titillation and exploitation, there will be very little to the movie but the sex. Watch a purely exploitative film sometime, and watch how it approaches the matter. The camera will leer over the proceedings; zooming in on particular moments (or sections of anatomy) more frequently than others. What’s more, the characters and story (if any) will be very simple, usually to the point of being underdeveloped. That’s because they aren’t the point of the movie, the point is to get your rocks off.

Shortbus is different because it’s all about the characters and their stories. It’s just that said characters are specifically dealing with sex. However, the sex, itself is simply a metaphor for something greater; for these individuals’ personal searches for human connection.

As my longtime readers have no doubt surmised, I particularly love good characters in my movies. Apparently, each of the actors came up with their character on his or her own, with some help from the director. While this may seem like the makings of a particularly messy plot, in actuality the exact opposite occurs. The end result is the convergence of several different storylines into a neat and united whole.

And the characters themselves are very convincing and identifiable. This isn’t a typical drama or genre film with archetypes and tidily defined character roles. The characters of Shortbus are ordinary, everyday people with all the quirks, flaws and foibles that all of us consistently deal with. These are people I can expect to meet in town, who I can identify with. Hell, I hang out with these guys on a regular basis.

What’s more, since these are all everyday people, there are no real heroes or villains. Okay, Severin’s john is an unrepentant dick; but at least he’s a realistic one (I have known way too many guys exactly like him), and he’s only a very small supporting element of the movie. I went into the movie thinking one thing about each of the protagonists, and then found myself changing my mind several times before the movie’s end. Ultimately though, I found myself both discovering something in each of the protagonists that I recognized in myself, and desperately hoping that they would succeed in the end.

Sofia, one of the two main protagonists the movie focuses on, is obviously a very intelligent, competent and knowledgeable woman. When we first meet her, she seems to have everything together. However, we quickly find out that she’s missing one rather important life experience; and it’s affecting the rest of her life. Her job for one; one of the women she meets at the Shortbus asks “so you’re a sex therapist and you’ve never had an orgasm yourself?” to which Sofia finds herself unable to respond.

Then there’s her marriage. Sofia and Rob obviously love each other, but the fact that they’re unable to connect on this one basic level is causing friction. This gives rise to insecurities in both of them, which further erodes their relationship. And the thing is that, like the majority of relationships, both of them have equal complaints and blame.

James, our other primary protagonist, has some severe damage from his past that is preventing him from enjoying what he currently has. Jamie comes across as overbearing at first; but he is truly a good guy, he really does love James, and he’s doing the best that he can. Unfortunately, while James is well aware of this, on an important level he still can’t accept it. What’s worse is that he doesn’t feel that he has anyone to turn to about it, which exacerbates his demons and sends him in a truly destructive direction.

I find Severen particularly interesting. Among other things, she is always carrying a Polaroid camera around with her which she uses to snap pictures of people, often at inappropriate moments, and sometimes she then hands the picture to them with a comment written on it. However, rude as it may seem, I don’t get the feeling that she’s being intentionally assholish; but that she’s simply trying to connect in the only way that she knows how.

Severen comes across as somebody who’s either forgotten, or never really learned, the proper way to interact with people. If her regular john is in any way indicative of her usual customers, she is probably never given that opportunity either. She desperately searches for a real human connection, but her mistakes and failures leave her more and more frustrated. That’s something I can readily identify with.

Even James’ stalker doesn’t turn out to be that bad. While he’s kind of creepy at first (as all stalkers are), when we find out his motives for it, he’s suddenly sympathetic. What’s more, he’s the one who winds up saving James; in more than one way.

Finally, I would just like to add that Bond is my personal favorite character in this movie. He’s just a supporting character, but he’s always a lot of fun whenever he’s on screen. He also has all the movie’s funniest lines, which he delivers perfectly.

Throughout the course of the movie we are witness to these people’s trials and tribulations. And while we are shown parts of their lives that may make us uncomfortable, they are things that all of us deal with in our own lives; even if we’re not comfortable holding them up to public witness. What’s more, all of it is honest. The sex scenes are not eroticized, the camera does not leer at them in a way meant to turn the audience on. Instead, they actually help to expand on our knowledge of the characters and their interactions with each other. After a certain point, it actually feels like we are brought right into their lives on a very intimate level.

For me, it is the ending scene that sticks in my mind and sums up the movie. Just as all the protagonists’ personal dramas have reached their peak, there is a blackout (apparently there really was blackout during the filming, and it inspired them to use it in the movie). All the Shortbus’ community heads to it in search of the security of people they know. As the scene opens and the protagonists individually enter, we have Bond standing up and singing.

It’s a beautiful song that Bond sings; a number called In the End whose chorus (“we will all get it in the end”) perfectly encapsulates the movie and the hopes of our protagonists. It starts out a melancholy, wistful, yet still hopeful little tune that asks ‘will we get what we need?’ However, halfway through it suddenly becomes a joyful, boisterous anthem of triumph; ‘we will get what we need!’ And as the song and the movie close over the credits; we are left with certainty that these people with whom we have lived and sweated and suffered with for the last ninety minutes have, each in their own way, finally found what they’ve been looking for.

Young People Fucking (2007)

The Movie: We are presented with the intertwining of five different sexual encounters between eleven different people. In The Best Friends; Matt (Aaron Abrams, also the co-writer and executive producer of this film) and Kristen (Carly Pope of Orange County and Nemesis Game), two long time friends, attempt to take the awkward step to friends with benefits. The Couple presents us with Andrew (Josh Dean) and Abby (Kristin Booth); a married, long-time couple who have hit a slump in their sex life. In an attempt to start it up again, they try something very unconventional. The Exes gives us Mia (Sonja Bennett of Fido) and Eric (Josh Cooke); a former couple who meet up for what is probably an ill-advised date and sexual encounter. With The First Date we have Ken (Callum Blue of the T.V. show Dead Like Me), the office Don Juan, seducing his newest conquest, Jamie (Diora Baird of the Night of the Demons remake). However, the encounter doesn’t go at all as he expects it to. Finally, in The Roommates, longtime roommates Gord (Ennis Esmer) and Dave (Peter Oldring) have a strained relationship, almost to the point of antagonism. Gord is just about to move in with his girlfriend, Inez (Natalie Lisinska). However, there is a new twist in Gord and Dave’s relationship when Gord asks Dave to have sex with Inez. Let the games begin.

The Review: Young People Fucking; sounds like the title for a barely legal porno, doesn’t it? However, that is not the case at all for this movie. For one thing, YPF pretty much fails at being erotica; especially if you have access to the real thing. While it does address sex far more directly and bluntly than most mainstream movies, there is still a tendency to use many of the techniques many mainstream films use to tone down sex; sex while clothed, camera angles that block out the action, etc. In fact, I found at least one or two sex scenes that I thought would have been more convincing if they’d been a little more graphic.

However, this isn’t a drawback at all, because YPF is very obviously not meant as exploitation or erotica. Instead, the movie is a rather unconventional character study. As I’ve mentioned before (if it’s not obvious enough from looking at the general structure of my reviews), characters are one of my favorite parts of any story. I love good characters and good character interactions. What’s more, although not too surprising when you think about it, in recent years I’ve been finding that I really loves me a good character study.

The setup of the movie is very cleverly done. First we are presented with each of our relationships. The early introductions are rather sparse; we are only given a basic label for the basic relationship (i.e. The Best Friends) and just enough dialogue to give us an idea for the setup. Sometimes we’re not even given the characters’ names immediately. The actual sex is used as a basic framing device, the movie divided into six chapters: Prelude, Foreplay, Sex, Interlude, Orgasm and Afterglow. At each chapter we learn a little bit more about the characters, their initial relationship prior to the sexual encounter, and where said relationship will be headed at the end of the encounter.

Due to script, cast and blocking, the end result comes out very well. While a few of the cast may skew a bit toward Hollywood pretty, overall they come across as real and believable characters. As for the script, none of these sexual episodes are played for either fantasy or dramatic plot device. The interactions, the relationships and the people are all something the majority of us are familiar with in our own lives.

Of course, this can be uncomfortable sometimes. While YPF is at its core a character study, at a secondary level it also works as a comedy. The thing is though; this isn’t the brainless, sleazy raunch of your typical sex comedy. The humor of this film centers around the absurdity of the characters’ situations and behavior, but it’s a very realistic absurdity. This isn’t the improbable, outrageous laugh you find in a genre comedy; this is the familiar laughter triggered by all the ridiculous things you encounter in your everyday life. There was so much going on here that I have seen and/or experienced for myself, which just made it all the funnier.

Finally, there are the characters themselves. As I stated before, the characters we are initially presented with are essentially ciphers at the beginning. We are given basic archetypes; the two best friends who turn to each other after a series of disastrous relationships, the office Don Juan and his latest innocent conquest, etc.; so we have a general idea of where things will probably go, but we are given almost nothing in the way of details. We get the details as the movie goes on; these basic skeletons we start with getting a little bit more fleshed out before our eyes. By the end of the movie, what started out as ciphers we finally know and understand as full human beings. In most cases the final outcome isn’t too much of a surprise, but there are a few genuinely clever reversals as well.

I really can’t think of too much else to say about the movie without spoiling it, as a very large part of the fun is the gradual discovery as you go of what’s really going on. So I’ll just end it on this note. Young People Fucking, despite what it might seem by its title, is neither sexploitative erotica nor a raunchy, brainless sex comedy. If you are after either of those things, then turn around right now because you will be very disappointed. However, if either an absurdly funny yet honest look at human relationships, or an unconventional yet ultimately fascinating example of a character study appeals to you, then you have come to the right place.

Thank You for Smoking (2005)

The Movie: Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart from the Dark Knight) is probably one of the most hated men alive. He is the spokesman and public face for the Academy of Tobacco Studies; a Big Tobacco funded “research center” that studies the link between smoking and lung cancer (fifteen years and nothing definitive yet). Naylor’s job is to fight for the rights of the tobacco industry, defending it from the attacks and slanders of the various political lobbies and action groups that have it under siege.

Naylor does have a few aces in his corner. First of all he is a very naturally talented speaker, the kind of smooth talker who makes the Satan of folklore look like an amateur. He also has two good friends in the form of Polly Bailey (Maria Bello), the head lobbyist for the alcohol industry; and Bobby Jay Bliss (David Koechner), spokesman for the firearms lobby. Together the M.O.D. (Merchants of Death) Squad, as they call themselves, meets weekly for lunch to discuss strategies.

However, Naylor also has some major challenges. Probably the most direct of them is B.R. (J.K. Simmons of the recent Spiderman trilogy), his backstabbing boss. Then there is his desire to reconnect with his son, Joey (Cameron Bright of the Butterfly Effect and the Twilight movies), despite the efforts of his estranged ex-wife (Kim Dickens) and her boyfriend (Daniel Travis). Finally, Naylor’s arch nemesis, Vermont Senator Ortolan Finistirre (William H. Macy), has launched a new campaign to mark all cigarette packets with the skull and crossbones poison symbol.

But it’s about to get worse. A kidnapping by extremists, and an unwise affair with an ambitious reporter (Katie “Mrs. Tom Cruise” Holmes of Dawson’s Creek fame), threatens to derail Naylor’s life completely…

The Review:

“Michael Jordan plays ball, Charles Manson kills people, I talk. Everyone has a talent."

Satire is a strange beast, to put it mildly. In its strictest definition, satire is a literary (although it can be graphic as well) form of social criticism that takes the issue or individual being criticized and depicts it at its most absurd extreme. However, like all art forms, good satire is hard to pull off. It’s one thing to just make fun of a current event or celebrity and call it “satire,” it’s another entirely to do it in a way that truly says something relevant about the event or individual so depicted. Added to that is the fact that much of what is classified under “satire” can be dated really quickly; when the depicted item is no longer relevant to the public. However, what I, personally, find most interesting about the art form is that with the very best satire, the line between fact and exaggeration can be very blurry indeed.

Thank You for Smoking is a satirical look at the U.S. lobbying system that renders almost invisible the line between absurd exaggeration and what you can actually expect to see in the news headlines. Seriously, I have really seen, with my own eyes, some of the most absurd and ridiculous plot elements of this movie reported by the news. For one, the pictorial warnings on cigarette packages; as you may or may not know there was recently a nearly successful campaign to do exactly that; except that unlike the poison symbol of the movie, this one was to show graphic depictions of tobacco’s long term effects. Then there’s the character of Bobby Jay Bliss, who portrays perfectly every so-called Second Amendment Rights advocate I have encountered or heard from. In one scene that brilliantly sums up the one of the driving mindsets behind the movement; just after Nick has recovered from his kidnapping, Bobby hands him a pistol to defend himself with the next time. Joey, who is present, says “cool!”; and Bobby responds with an expression that mirrors Joey’s own and the comment “yeah, huh?” However, when Polly (also present), jabs him and gives him a dirty look, Bobby immediately looks serious and says “I mean, guns should be treated with respect, you understand?”

The big thing about Thank You for Smoking is that it’s not really about smoking at all, but the lobbying system itself. In fact, you could probably change it to just about any other hot button issue and not have to make too many real changes to the core plot. The depiction of the world Naylor lives and operates in is both hilariously ridiculous, and entirely too convincing. This is a world where all that matters is the victory of the cause you champion, no matter what the cost of said victory. Actual facts don’t matter here, they are manufactured to suit whatever message you are trying to convey. As Nick comments about the man who heads the “research” for the Institute of Tobacco Studies: “the man’s a genius, he could disprove gravity.”

Nick Naylor, himself, is a particularly fascinating and engaging character; due both to the script and to Eckhart’s talents as an actor. Naylor is the type of character who, in just about any other movie, would be the villain; or at the very least a sleazy used car salesman type of individual. However, first of all this movie is entirely from his point of view. Secondly, he has enough positive human traits that not only is he identifiable and sympathetic; but I actually find myself cheering on the bastard.

Part of this is simply by way of comparison to the other characters. In the world Nick Naylor inhabits, everybody has an ulterior motive or an ax to grind. Even Senator Finistirre, who should be heroic, is far more concerned about his image and political ambitions than he is about the righteousness of his cause; and as a result is more than willing to take his cause to absurd and extreme ends.

However, a very large part of the regard we wind up feeling for Nick Naylor is entirely due to the man, himself. For one, it’s made very clear and explicit, without the movie clubbing us over the head with the fact, that he and his son truly love and care for each other. For another, Nick acts out of a sense of duty and honor that, Quixotic though it is, one cannot help but admire nonetheless. I, personally, do not agree with Naylor’s cause (I feel that the “helpless” corporations he champions have a dire need to be knocked over, beaten and kicked, repeatedly); but the fact that he’s willing to put so much on the line to do what he feels is right resonates nonetheless.

Finally, in what is probably the most perverse twist in an already perversely twisted movie; Nick Naylor, openly acknowledged and lauded as the patron god of conmen in a world that consists almost entirely of conmen and shysters, actually comes out as honest and sincere. You heard that right. The thing that really gets me about this character, the crowning spark of this movie’s brilliance, is that the character who occupies the role of the guy used car salesmen aspire to be is, more often than not, telling the truth. I don’t agree with Naylor’s cause; but every time I watch this movie I’m shocked by the fact that I often find his observations right on the money.

For example, I don’t think it’s right to target cigarettes at children. However, when Naylor addresses his son’s class about his job at the beginning of the movie; the basic message he conveys to them, that they should think for themselves and not let other people make choices for them, is one I wholeheartedly endorse. Or when he first meets with Heather Holloway, the reporter, and admits that he mainly does what he does “for the mortgage;” and then ironically tells himself that this is the “yuppie Nuremberg defense.” In other words, he knows it’s morally suspect at times, but it’s what he has to do to keep his job. As the movie goes on, “for the mortgage” becomes the code phrase for doing unpleasant, degrading, morally shady things; not because you want to, but because you have to in order to make a living and get by in this world. That’s something nearly all of us can identify with on some level.

That leads us to the final element I love about this movie, the dialogue. As I’ve mentioned before in other blog entries, I have always loved language and words; and I particularly love good exchanges of dialogue. Thank You for Smoking has some of the very best lines and dialogue I have ever had the pleasure of coming across. In fact, there is so much good dialogue here that I had a particularly difficult time trying to pick out a good quote for this entry. I won’t repeat them here, but for my two very favorite parts keep an eye out for the exchange where Naylor explains to his son how he can always be right, and the scene where he and a Hollywood producer are coming up with an idea to successfully product place cigarettes in a major movie.

So in conclusion, Thank You for Smoking wonderfully presents the three movie elements I love the most: it provides a convincing and believable world, it portrays some truly wonderful characters, and it features some of the best movie dialogue you can find. It is a brilliant satire that, all too accurately in some cases, depicts for us the most ridiculous aspects of our government and society.

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003)

The Movie: Andie Anderson (Kate Hudson) writes for Composure, currently the fastest growing women’s magazine. She works the “how to” column, but wants to write something more substantial and worthwhile than what her job will let her publish. One day, desperate for an idea for a new column, and facing the latest catastrophe of her friend Michelle’s (Kathryn Hahn) disastrous romantic life, Andie is suddenly hit by inspiration. For her next column she will write about things women commonly do to drive men off. To field-test it, she’ll chose a guy at random, start a relationship, do everything she can to ensure that he will be heading for the hills within ten days, and write up the whole sorry affair for her column.

Ben Barry (Matthew McConaughey) is an advertising executive. He’s definitely good at what he does, but up to this point he has mainly worked with alcohol and sports paraphernalia. Ben has the opportunity for something better however; he’s recently brought his boss’ (Robert Klein) attention to a major diamond interest that is bound to be lucrative. Unfortunately, Ben’s two business rivals, the Judies Spears and Green (Michael Michelle and Shalom Harlow, respectively [and while we’re at it, are they supposed to be a lesbian couple or just really good friends?]) have moved into position to take the account for themselves. Ben confronts them, and the four wind up making a bet for the diamond account. To demonstrate his ability to deal with the themes needed to sell diamonds, Ben must find a random woman, get her to truly fall in love with him, and bring her as his date to the account kickoff dinner in ten days.

Of course, Andie and Ben wind up choosing each other for their respective little destructive projects, and the games really begin. Andie goes out of her way to make Ben miserable, while Ben goes equally out of his way to hold on to Andie. And to further complicate matters, the two find themselves falling for each other…

The Review:

“Bullshit!"

Well here it is; the movie I originally intended to review for Valentine’s Day 2012. It’s not a secret that I really detest Valentine’s Day. Now I know; the socially awkward, single guy who hates Valentine’s Day is an old cliché. However, clichés come about because there is some truth to them; and my reasons aren’t necessarily what you are probably thinking. My main reason for hating the holiday isn’t due to spite and jealousy, although they have played their parts in the past. Nor is it because of the transparently manufactured and corporate nature of the holiday; although again, that does play a role.

My dislike of Valentine’s Day is mainly due to its very nature, which sits in opposition to my own. Valentine’s Day is all about the Big Showy Gesture. In essence, it centers around the idea that all you need is a big, ostentatious display to show that you love someone. After all, what are the cards, the roses, the huge boxes of chocolates, the ridiculously expensive displays of conspicuous consumption, but a massive show for the rest of the world?

Now, I can see the occasional need for the BSG. Hell, I can even admit that it always looks impressive. Unfortunately, that’s all it really has going for it. At its core, the BSG is ultimately hollow. Unless you have something substantial to back it up, the BSG is always going to collapse after a short time; if it doesn’t immediately blow up in your face. I, personally, am about the Small Substantial Gesture; the little actions that on initial appearance aren’t all that impressive, but that slowly but surely build a stable and lasting platform for what it is you are trying to build. You will never see me propose at a football game, but you will see me doing all the little things I can to make sure that the relationship (and I don’t just mean romantic ones, either) will be a worthwhile and enduring one. And I’m not saying said gestures can’t be big, grand, or quirky either; I do those all the time. I just feel that if they are only meant for one person, then they actually need to mean something, and the rest of the world doesn’t need to be in on it.

My general distaste for most mainstream Hollywood romantic comedies is also due to this principle. They, too, are more often than not about the BSG. How many cinematic romances have been saved by the dramatic actions of one character, such as a dash to the airport just before the plane leaves or a public declaration before a huge crowd? And how many of the above mentioned dramatic actions are needed because said individual did something utterly unforgiveable?

The formula used for these movies is almost always the same. Two people, seemingly unfit for each other, fall in love; usually under some kind of contrived circumstances. They are utterly happy and devoted to each other, and then one of them does something truly despicable (or one of them finds out about the other doing something despicable) that breaks up the relationship. In the end it takes a major public act to save the romance. It’s completely unrealistic.

Now I am well aware that much of what I enjoy movie-wise is equally unrealistic. I guess that my main issue is that so many people see these movies as what love truly is. I mean, romantic comedies tend to come with adjectives such as “inspiring,” “uplifting,” and “feel-good.” Yet, they are almost always about relationships that, if brought into the world we live in, would be the epitome of unhealthy and dysfunctional.

Obviously there are exceptions; I can actually name a few romantic comedies I regularly watch and enjoy. But think about it; if I were to actually try some of the things the male lead does to get the female, at the very least I would probably wind up with a restraining order. Likewise, if a couple really was so mutually insecure and distrusting that one of the ridiculous little incidents common in these films could actually break them up; there’s no way the relationship in question could last very long, even if they were stupid enough to get back together. And finally, considering how poisonous and blatantly destructive these movie breakups tend to be; there is no way in Hell that couple could ever get back together on anything like healthy terms. There would always be resentment and some degree of mutual grudge. And yet, these “romances” are held up as positive; what we all should want and how we all should get it. I know horror isn’t for everyone, but you have to admit this for my favored genre; the destructive, anti-social behavior is nearly always the province of the villain/antagonist, and portrayed as a bad thing.

Which brings me to How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, a movie that I think epitomizes these objections. Like the majority of the movies on this blog, I have a history with it. A few years back, near Christmas, my mother had to have surgery. Because the hospital where she was staying over is only a few blocks from my apartment, I visited her quite a bit. My siblings came to Idaho for the holiday, and one night found me and my sister visiting together. She was feeling board, so she turned on the television and found this movie being played. We were a ways into the movie, but my sister explained the basic plot to me. I’m still not sure if she ever figured out why I was so appalled.

The thing that really got my blood boiling was that it was all about these destructive social games. I hate games; whether we’re talking social, political, professional or what have you. Part of it is because of personal prejudice; due to my aspergers, I’m always finding myself on the wrong end of them. But mostly it’s because they are extremely destructive for no real purpose. While there are rare occasions when they are truly needed, and sometimes they can even be fun; overall they are only about somebody jumping through unnecessary hoops for someone else’s ego trip. And the games being played by the two leads in this movie are, to my mind, of the worst sort.

What I find really sad about this film after having watched it a second time (yeah, I’m a masochist), is noting the disparity of the talent of the two leads versus the characters they play. Said characters are both repulsive slimebags. Yet, the actors and the script actually make them a little more attractive as people than they should rightfully be.

Hudson, for example, is wonderful. There are a few scenes of her interacting with her friends that aren’t necessarily part of the main plot, but that are a lot of fun. It’s just little things; her tone of voice and mannerisms when joking around with them, the casual little bits of give and take between them; but I found myself enjoying them. Likewise, there are a few scenes where, after Andie has just finished her latest round of “let’s make Ben miserable” and he’s just gone out of earshot; she wipes away her tears and gets this evil smile that any James Bond villain would envy. It’s almost enough to make you momentarily forget that this is a woman who is doing her damndest to arbitrarily make the life of a man; one who, for all she knows, may actually be in love with her; a living Hell.

Ben is every bit as bad, yet I find that I have a little bit more sympathy for him nonetheless. Mostly this is due to being familiar with the position he’s in. I’ve been romantically jerked around before. Admittedly, nowhere near the level of some other people I’ve known; but it only takes one time to drive home just how much it sucks to be on the receiving end. Also, through various little tells, McConaughey makes it clear very early on that Ben is smitten. He is dealing with a girlfriend who is insecure, jealous, petty, unreasonable and manipulative (sadly, again not outside my own life experiences); yet one gets the impression that bet or no bet, Ben genuinely sees enough that’s worthwhile in Andie that he’ll tolerate anything to keep her around.

But even with these small examples of good traits, as well as a scene where Andie meets Ben’s family that I find also resonates with me; ultimately it’s not enough to make up for the fact that we are watching two people playing really nasty games with each other's lives and emotions. This is the mother of all destructive relationships here; and the only part of it that really strikes me as true is the inevitable blowup at the kickoff banquet where Andie and Ben simultaneously discover the truth about the other and have a very nasty and public breakup over it. Unfortunately, they couldn’t have left it there. This being a genre romance, there has to be a contrived reconciliation at the end. However, I really cannot see this relationship going anywhere positive after all that has passed between the two of them. So in conclusion, I wound up reviewing two movies for Valentine’s Day instead of the one I originally planned on; and I’m still not sure what to think of the fact that between the jokey horror movie and the officially labeled “romance,” it’s the movie about psychopathic slasher-killers that shows us the healthier and more palatable relationship.