Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2006-2008)

3. The Woods
When “The Woods” first came out, I was disappointed. I found the story to be overly vague. I found it lacking in the intense visual style of “May” and generally paling in comparison to that film. Perhaps I was predestined to have a low opinion after such a great debut. That the movie sat on a shelf for over a year certainly didn’t help any preconceived notions.

Re-watching it now a few years removed from my initial anticipation, my view is more positive. “The Woods” still isn’t a great picture but it does manage to bring the creepy several times throughout its runtime. It has often been compared to “Suspiria.” That’s apt. We all ready know Lucky is an Argento fan and the witches/isolated girls school combo is a deliberate reference. More then anything else, it’s the sound design that recalls Dario’s often touted classic. There aren’t any swirling Goblin synth but creepy, whispered voices (provided by none other then Angela Bettis) fill out the background sounds. “Witch!” is even shouted once. The music, with its female crooning, also helps the feel. (Who knew Lesley Gore could be spooky?)

To say that Lucky has lost his style by transferring to a bigger studio was wrong. It’s his style that provides the movie with the atmosphere it has. The shadows of the woods and the school’s hallways give off an unsettling vibe. The music hall, in particular, is awfully moody. The big finale, which also recalls “Suspiria,” proves to be the spookiest bit in the movie as the past, present and some gross gore come at us in quick succession. One of my preliminary issues was the story seemed to have a lot of mysterious things planned but left most of these threads unexplained. Reevaluating now, I find a lot more is explained then I’d realized. All the puzzle pieces are presented and it’s up to the audience to put it together.
When the movie is focusing on creepy shadows and paranoid conspiracies, it’s relatively successful. When the CGI tree monsters start to attack, that’s not so successful. The attack that leads to the climax almost works but the other two tree sequences, in particular the one involving the cop, fall laughably flat.

The cast is solid enough. Agnes Bruckner is a likable lead, Patricia Clarkson underplays a little bit but has a few moments, Lauren Birkell and Rachel Nichols do well in their respective parts of best friend and queen bitch. And Bruce Campbell, god bless him, actually acts this time, expanding pass his Ash persona to play a worried, pushover Daddy, before picking up an axe again at story’s end. It’s one of his best performances.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with “The Woods” remains. Against “May,” a layered, powerful, personal horror picture, “The Woods” seems thin in comparison. It’s an atmospheric dark fairy tale without much more to say beyond a few fun lesbian undertones. (It’s a McKee film, after all.) Good to watch but never a big favorite. [Grade: B]

4. Red (with Trygve Allister Diesen)
“Red” was a very troubled production. Lucky McKee, obviously a big fan of author Jack Ketchum after producing the adaptation of “The Lost,” has been wanting to make the movie for years. Things eventually came together with a great cast and everything seemed to be going well. And then, after more then half of the movie was shot, Lucky was fired. Nobody involved with the decision seems interested in saying why he was let go. Either way, about a year later an unknown Swedish director named Trygve Diesen was brought on to finish up the movie. In the end, both directors were given credit. Nobody has seen anything Diesen has done before this, but he seems confident. You certainly can’t tell that this is the product of two different directors.

I’m a fan of Ketchum and “Red,” despite being a fairly simplistic morality play, is probably my favorite writing of his, out of what I’ve read. The old adage of the movie never being as good as the book proves true but it seems silly to criticize the differences in media. The movie is very faithful, only cutting out a few characters and removing an unnecessary romantic subplot.

The biggest coup here is Brian Cox in the lead. Mr. Cox is a great character actor and too rarely given a lead role. He’s perfectly cast as Avery Ludlow, an old man who has lost a lot in his life and is only asking for those who have cause his pain to own up to it. Cox is quiet and his blue eyes convey a lot of sorrow. Halfway through the movie, Cox delivers a deeply affecting monologue. Instead of cutting to a flashback, the movie wisely decides to focuses in on his face as he tells his sad tale. None of the other characters are as developed as Ludlow but there is still some talent in the cast. Kyle Gallner is the best of the supporting turns, while Tom Sizemore plays his typical asshole part and Robert Englund and Amanda Plummer stop by for cameos. Kim Dickens is good enough but I would have preferred to have seen what Angela Bettis, who was originally cast in the part, could have done with the role.
The direction is low key, lacking some of the stylistic flourish of McKee’s past films, but it goes with the quiet tone. Dogs are a reoccurring symbol here, representing kindness and unconditional love in comparison to the senseless cruelty and ignorance of mankind. I also like the fades to red that are used a few times.

The finale probably should have been more suspenseful. I do love the resolution, which nicely shows how hope springs eternal. “Red” is a quiet and thoughtful production, more of a drama then a thriller, with a great lead performance and some resonating concepts at its center. [Grade: B]

So, what's Lucky been up to recently? Well, he made a short for X-Box Live along with a bunch of other neat directors. I haven't seen it because I don't have a fucking X-Box 360. Beyond that, it's kinda' quiet. He's been linked to both a remake of "Fiend Without a Face" and an adaptation of Brian Harper's novel "Shiver," but nothing's come of those yet. He is supposedly writing something for Chris Sivertson called "Hippy" that was starring Lindsay Lohan at one point. I'm not sure if that's actually getting made. Whatever he does next, I'm probably going to support and watch it. You should too!

Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2001-2002)

Lucky McKee is the best filmmaker to come out of the horror boom earlier this decade. I'm a massive, massive nerd for everything he's done. Needless to say, this report card will be filled with even more endless rambling then usual.


1. All Cheerleaders Die (with Chris Sivertson)
I shouldn’t even be watching “All Cheerleaders Die.” It’s never been given an official home video release and is only owned by cast/crew members. If you’re watching it, chances are you bought a gray market release and are a dirty, dirty, thief and should feel awful about yourself. Ahem.

Anyway, this is something Lucky and his pal Chris Sivertson (The madman responsible for the underrated “The Lost” and the much better then you’ve heard “I Know Who Killed Me.” Not to mention the “Jack and Jill” short in “May.”) threw together for fun. In the sea of shot-on-video garbage out there, the movie certainly stands out. Yes, the production values are as low as you’d expect. None of the gore is all that convincing and there are numerous unintentional lens flares. (At least the filmmakers knew better then to attempt any day-for-night shots.) The whole thing is pretty low rent and gritty. It’s jarring at first but once you get use to the aesthetic, you might find a pretty entertaining little flick.

Not all of the acting is of high quality, Shelli Merril and her unconvincing accent is especially embarrassing and Jesse Hlubik is the only half-way convincing football player, but most of the performances are acceptable, with some of them even being good with some nice, subtle physical details. There’s plenty of pot smoking throughout, even a “Doobie Count” at the end of the credits, but no nudity as Joe Bob Briggs is quick to point out. The one sex scene is shot extremely awkwardly. It’s pretty clear no one was comfortable with that.The premise of boys and girls going against each other proves that even in these humble beginnings, McKee had more on his mind then just mindless carnage. When the cheerleaders come out on top, the guys loose it. Violence follows, as does a legitimately shocking bear trap gag. The scene cuts to five years later, something I thought was a mistake at first, but before you know it, the zombies are out of their graves and full-blown chaos erupts. It’s pretty clear that any thoughts on gender theory have been tossed aside when the gut munching commences. But, hey, when you got a motorcycles going into a lake, disembowelments, high school reunion massacres, and the big tree-branch French kissing scene, who can complain?

Yes, the zombie make-up isn’t very good and the “Evil Dead” inspired stick attack is really bad, but stuff flies by at such a frantic, manic, fun, pace, you can’t stop to focus on the shortcomings. Honestly, when isn’t zombie carnage set to death metal awesome? The movie is very short, minus the ten minute joke-ridden credits, so it certainly doesn’t overstay its welcome and the ending is even sort of touching. With actors credited as Peckawood and Dirty Ernie, “All Cheerleaders Die” feels like an extended in-joke and has continued to be. It’s a treat for the director’s fans and horror buffs who can really handle low budgets will probably enjoy it too. [Grade: B]


2. May 
Oh boy. What to say about “May?” “Watching this movie is like slipping on a comfortable pair of old slippers?” “It’s like Argento with a heart?” Some other magazine friendly by-line? No, no. I love this movie. I love it like a spouse. If it was a person, I would want to marry it, go everywhere with it, make sweet sweet love to it, so on.

When I first saw “May” it touched me on a deeply personal level. Maybe more then I should be proud of, I saw a great deal of myself up on the screen. It seems to me, what Lucky McKee did here, was, without fear, cast all the awkwardness, humiliation, and hurt of being an outcast up on the screen. He gives voice to any number of deep personal pains. He brings them to life literally before bringing them into existence in a pure, bloody, visceral way. There really isn’t any more I can say about that without just dissolving into totally incomprehensible fan-drooling.

So, what else? The movie is really pretty to look out. The use of color is brilliant and each one of the frames has an amazing depth to them. The two combine to create a singular visual fingerprint that, even if the movie had nothing else, cements “May” as a horror classic.

But it has everything else. It feels almost redundant by this point to laud Angela Bettis. But I’ll do it anyway. She’s really uncontrollably essential, all encompassing great. I love you, Angela. You’re beautiful, you’re amazing, you make May into a human being. Not just a great character, but a real person. I really can’t heap enough praise onto her for this performance. The rest of the cast is pretty good. Anna Farris, she of the increasingly weak low brawl comedies, is really sexy, a stereotypical lipstick lesbian, but alluring none the less. Jeremy Sisto is good too, giving Adam a number of angles. James Duvall, he of the indie film cred, has a hilarious small part. (“You wanna’ get some Jujubees with me?” is the best line in the movie.)

The music, by indie singer Jaye Barnes Luckett, is fantastic, incredibly moody, a mixture of very creepy choir music and emotional rock songs. This is a good example of a film that wouldn’t have been nearly as successful without the music.

Okay, enough of the functional criticism and review. I’ve seen the movie many times, obviously, and every time I notice something new. The movie is rife with symbols. Not necessarily symbols in the sense that they mean something to the world at large, but in a deep Jung-ian way. May is a fetishist. She obsesses over tiny, individual things. The big things, the body parts she latches on to, or the small things. They are many repeated images here that you might only catch on repeat viewings and, despite the temptation to do so, I won’t reveal them. (Broken glass, cigarettes, limbs, toy knives, showers, fabric, dolls… Oh poo, I ruined it.) The movie’s funny too, with most of the humor coming from the great, memorable dialogue.

Oh, I haven’t talked about the dolls yet! Soozy, May’s best friend, a doll encased in glass, is a character onto herself. It never comes alive, it doesn’t have to. It’s creepier just staring. And maybe the cracking glass isn’t the most subtle metaphor but the movie makes it work, especially the sound more then anything else. Soozy leads to one of the most iconic horror moments in the movie. If all the, you know, talking and thinking and such turns off the crazy gorehound horror fans, they’ll at least remember the scene people who have seen the movie know what I’m talking about. 
A common criticism waged against the movie is May’s evolution from painfully shy lonely nerd to serial killer. A sudden character shift might be appropriate, considering the mind breaking events that proceeded, but I don’t think that was the intention. Especially after May returns to her apartment afterwards, where she resorts to her normal personality. When her Halloween costume goes on, she becomes Soozy, of course. May assumes a persona, to allow her to do what she must. And the ending, a point of debate for some. I’d say its one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen. I wouldn’t have it any other way. (There’s a key to understanding the final scene. Earlier, Polly gives a throw-away line, “It’s our imperfections that make us special.” You’ll get it now if you didn’t all ready.)

Okay, so I guess I should point out some imperfections here. I can stand back and see that, maybe, the movie tries to be a little too quirky for its own good, especially earlier on. My one real problem is the opening scene. Though it’s probably a great idea to open a horror movie with a screaming woman, I feel it shows too much, too early. I’ve rambled long enough. “May” is the best horror of the last ten years and one of my all-time favorites. [Grade: A]

Review: Delightful Water Universe (2009)

So, it’s 2009, and what has Trent Harris been up to all this time? Well, some documentary shorts have been made, some books written. The last thing I saw with his name on it were a few video/music collages done for the “Hearing Voices” website. (A few of which are on the YouTube.) And then, seemingly out of nowhere, “Delightful Water Universe” crops up.

What to say of it? Well, first off, Harris fans (How many of us are out there?) will probably go ga-ga over it. What will everyone else think? Who cares! Right out of gate, the movie inundates us with his unique brand of weirdness. The movie claims to be based on true events that will take place in the future. From here, we are reintroduced to the director’s trademarks. Plenty of funny, quotable dialogue, most of it in the form of obtuse insults, are on display here. (The writer/director can’t take credit for the highly amusing real Dan Quyale quotes that are trotted out a few times.) Perhaps more important is the odd story which involves a number of things, such as a dark future where corporations own everything and Bigfoot controls our thoughts with a hat made of windshield wipers. A vast conspiracy threatens to unleash the Delightful Water Universe on the world, enslaving us all to prime-time television.
Or is it? Perhaps the whole thing is just the incoherent ramblings of a nut locked up in an asylum, besieged on all sides by paranoid beliefs and delusions, and an apparent Burning Man festival going on just outside his walls.

Off-beat obviously but the movie is not as immediately accessible as some of Harris’ previous work. The whole thing is set up as a novel, leading to a heavy use of voiceover narration. Initially, it’s slightly off-putting and takes some getting use to. Also, one of the running jokes here, is that a lot of the big action takes place off-screen. Some times things are just described to us, more often we are presented with blindly artful montages. The best sequence in the film is such a scene standing in place of a wild sex scene. Instead of the hot action, we see the characters doing odd dances all set to infectious electronic music. (Also apparently composed by Harris. What doesn’t that guy do?) Though certainly a response to the paltry budget, this ends up working very well. These are moments of pure art tossed into the middle of the movie that somehow not manages to sidetrack or derail the momentum of the story. The other montages composed of old stock footage are less successful though no less hypnotic. And the long bits of underwear clad hotties seem slightly out of the place, even if it makes sense. (The movie has an overall sense of sad horniness, which it actually ends up justifying before the conclusion.)

Bill Allred isn’t buyable as a lady’s man, a joke the movie is in on, but is an amusing, easy to hang out with lead. Stefene Russell resurfaces for the first time since “Plan 10 from Outer Space” and shows the same sort of easy charm she did in that film, even if her Elmer Fudd lisp growls old by the end. However, it’s Dan Morley that gives the best performance, captivating in his derangement as the captured author that is writing the story we’re watching.
As much as I’d like to proclaim it as, “Delightful Water Universe” isn’t a full-fledged obscure weird classics like “Rubin and Ed.” The movie doesn’t really have an ending and instead just sort of circles out of logic before finishing up. Neither of the stories present have a proper conclusion and I can’t help but wonder if funding ran out or something. But still, there’s an emotional completeness here. Even if some things are left up in the air, the characters arrive at a better place then they began. The DVD case proclaims “Delightful Water Universe” as about heroic misfits, for heroic misfits. Truthful, as always. Not perfect but too infectiously quirky not to embrace, it sits proud among the rest of Trent Harris’ filmography. I mean, hell, it’s got a random musical number. You can’t resist the charms, it’ll make you as happy as a clam. [Grade: A-]

Director's Report Card: Wes Anderson (2001-2007)

3. The Royal Tenenbaums
“The Royal Tenenbaums” is distinctive for having one of the best opening sequences of all time. Within a few minutes, it successfully introduces all of the lead characters, the film’s visual style and tone, while never coming off as boring or heavy-handed. Much like “Rushmore” was framed as a stage play, this film is framed like a novel. Which is very appropriate, given that it feels a great deal like a novel. Not in the sense that it’s story wanders on for a few unnecessary hundred pages but in a lyrical sense. That a good portion of the film is narrated by an omnipresent voice, provided by Alec Baldwin, only helps along this feeling. Another important aspect that helps along the feel is the painted, novel dust jacket style art design, many of which provided by Wes Anderson’s brother, Eric.

While the movie’s look contributes so much to its success, it’s obviously the characters that make it as good as it is. It’s rare that you see a film where you love every single character and want to spend as much time with them as possible. Every character, from Royal Tenenbaum himself to the afflicted youth Dudley, is great. Equally, each actor does a great job, many giving career best. One of the things that create such strong characters are the layers applied to them. Each one of the Tenenbaum children are given a personal musical theme, while, I feel, each one also has an animal symbolic of them throughout the film. (Chas Tenenbaum is dogs, Margot is the spotted mice, while Richie is Mordicai the Falcon, probably the most personable falcon to ever be on film.) Reading to much into it? Probably not, consider the movie and director were talking about. Though Royal Tenenbaum fits into the Gene Hackman “type,” it’s still a great performance from him, exciting, energetic, selfish, but undeniably lovable. He seems like the type of character you’d love to have as a friend but not as a father. Bill Murray is so low-key he’s practically asleep. Danny Glover is also agreeably laconic. Luke Wilson and Ben Stiller both give subdued, subtle performances, while Owen the other Wilson goes far in the other direction, creating an entertaining kook.

Though it would be easy to only laud the cast, I really think the film as a whole belongs to Wes Anderson. His dry and slightly slanted wit thrives in every frame of the film and little time passes between each hilarious line of dialogue or off-handed quirky comment. Though the film is certainly very funny, it is just as effective as a drama as it is a comedy. There is a palatable melancholy floating under the whole time which culminates in the suicide scene, a moment that might be out of place in most comedies but works here. The scene is one of the highlights and pretty much trumps every other movie’s use of an Elliot Smith song.

Ultimately, you want each of the characters to succeed in their personal endeavors. Because they are human, you are allowed to laugh at their follies, but because the viewer is human, you are allowed to relate to their failures. The movie leaves me with a good feeling every time I see it because with every rewatch it’s like revisiting a group of old friends and because of its refreshing, quirky, funny mood. [Grade: A]

4. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Despite dividing audiences even more then usual, I feel “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou” is perhaps the Anderson film with the most replay value. It’s certainly the one with the most cult feel and the one that plays best over time. It’s a movie he’s been preparing to make for some time, considering his interest in Cousteau that has popped up in his previous efforts.

It’s the film that reinstated my faith in Bill Murray. After delving more and more into increasingly inaccessible pretentious indie films in which he brought nothing but a bored, detached moroseness (Including the vastly overrated “Lost in Translation.”), he actually acts in this one and is also for the first time in many years, seriously funny. While the interior disappointment and depression is here as always, Steve Zissou provides Murray with a detailed, multifaceted character. He’s cynical, lazy, over the hill, bitter, fully expecting everyone he’s ever cared about to abandon him, and full of self-loathing… Did I mention completely lovable? With a facial expressions or especially a funny turn of line, Murray reveals so much about Zissou while making him easily he’s most relatable and accomplished performance in some time.

But, least we forget, this is an ensemble film as well. While Owen Wilson’s accent is distracting, Willem DeFoe’s exaggerated German accent is funny but not as nearly as amusing as his performance. While relegated to playing psychos most of the time, he proves to be an accomplished comedic actor here, mugging like a petulant child at times, the constantly under-appreciated member of the crew. Jeff Goldblum also proves to be hilarious as Zissou’s rival, an expert in passive-aggression that mostly just seems to be good at everything Steve isn’t. As for the other cast members, Cate Blanchet is fine if unextraordinary and Angelica Huston is accomplished enough while Bud Cort has a great small role.

Music has always been featured heavily in Anderson’s film but it takes on a bigger importance there. Mark Mothersbough contributes another quirky, effectively tinny score which serves as a punch line on several occasions. Devo, The Stooges, and The Zombies are used well but it’s really the acoustic, Portuguese covers of Bowie songs that provide a large deal of personality here. To a major Bowie nerd as myself, this is just like a series of amusement tickling in-jokes. And, heck, it’s pretty much impossible not to get a kick when the opening bars to “Queen Bitch” start up at the end.

Henry Salick’s stop-motion creatures add a surreal, lyrical level, pushing the movie into its own little universe. Some people have called the big action sequences out of place but, I don’t know, the Rambo style breakdowns really breaks up the static. And, finally, this might be Wes’ funniest film or, at the very least, contains his funniest dialogue. From the interns, to the bound company stooges, Cody, revenge, dynamite, those goddamn dolphins… So on. Maybe it is too quirky for quirkiness’ sake for some people or maybe Wes Anderson just isn’t cool in the prep-school eyes of film critic cliques, but “The Life Aquatic” is awesome in my eyes, his most unhinged, inspired, comical journey to date. [Grade: A]


5. The Darjeeling Limited

I love how this movie looks. Every thing is so colorful, every shot is filled with something bright blue or a soft sandy yellow. If this isn’t an influence of Indian film, maybe it’s just from the country itself. The beauty of India is shown off at seemingly every opportunity and adds a lot of character.

Beyond the gorgeous setting, the movie is pretty basic Wes Anderson. The tale of a dysfunctional family coming together and attempting to heal their wounds certainly isn’t anything new. Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Adrian Brody (in a part that feels like it was written for Luke Wilson) are all game and give good performances but none of their brothers are as likable or memorable as Anderson’s past protagonists. Though the movie is filled with at least two moments of inspired hilarity and at least one more of sullen sadness, the film is never as funny nor as emotionally effective as previous efforts.

The use of music, set design, and direction is at least as brilliant as the rest of Anderson’s catalog and I do love the numerous reoccurring symbols and motifs as well as Bill Murray’s just-for-fun cameo.

Don’t get the impression that “The Darjeeling Limited” isn’t good- it’s well-acted, expertly written, and ends with the same heart-filling humor and warmth as the director’s other movies. It’s just not as good, and maybe is a little disappointing because of that. Make sure to watch the short film, “Hotel Chevalier,” first as there are some minor moments that don’t make any sense without it. [Grade: B+]

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox," Anderson's first venture into animation and based on the children's book by Roald Dahl, is suppose to come out this fall. That's sounds pretty interesting, right?

Director's Report Card: Wes Anderson (1996-1998)

So it's back to business as usual for the ol' movie blog now. Here's a report card for the director responsible for the majority of my Criterion collection.

1. Bottle Rocket
In today’s world when the quirky indie comedy is largely a genre onto itself, it’s sort of interesting to go back to the beginning, before that concept was so overplayed. “Bottle Rocket,” in addition to being the beginning of that sub-genre, more or less, also comes out of the door as a bold statement for Wes Anderson. His style is apparent pretty much from the opening scene. And while it hadn’t totally developed to the strength and instantly recognition that would later happen, you can definitely see the roots. We’ve got a story revolving around a group of misfits character, with the lead being a total rogue, trying to bring his wacky plans to fruition, much to the chagrin of everyone around him. You’ve got heavy use of early English pop/rock and an eccentric, catchy score courtesy of Devo’s Mark Mothersbough.

And, of course, the Wilson brothers. (All three of them actually. Andrew has a small role as super prick Future Man.) Now a days, when both brothers are associated with highly advertised but shallow studio comedies, usually of the romantic or family variety, it might be hard to remember they were actually talented once. It’s really Owen that shines here. While Luke’s often conflicted and concerned lead certainly isn’t a light job, Owen’s Dignan is obviously the most interesting character in the film and drives much of the action.

Actually, it’s in the second act, when the story’s focus shifts to the romantic subplot, that the movie falters. While fun to watch in its own right, compared to the very funny botched heist elements of the beginning, it seems mostly laugh-free. The movie makes up for this problem by returning to another messed up heist for the awesome conclusion, a brilliant series of humorous sequence that pretty much makes the whole movie.

The supporting cast is all right, with James Caan and Lumi Cavazos making impressions, though I found Robert Musgrave slightly annoying. While he would easily top it over time, “Bottle Rocket” is a good beginning for Anderson and certainly shows off his stylistic trademarks. [Grade: B]


2. Rushmore

It’s really fascinating to see a director’s style evolve from film to film, especially if that director’s style was distinct to begin with. “Rushmore” is a full scale improvement over “Bottle Rocket” and displays Wes Anderson really coming into his own as a filmmaker.

First off, it’s much funnier. The razor sharp, endlessly quotable, laugh-out-loud dialogue makes it first appearance. Honestly, a lot of the lines here had me bowling over with laughter. Also appearing are a number of subtle sight gags, like the nonsensical appearances of Halloween costumes or, most notably, Max’s (in)famous stage productions. Midway through the film, the one-up-man-ship between Murray and Schwartzman provides some of the biggest laughs of the picture.

Of course, “Rushmore” isn’t just a highly successful comedy. It's primary a focused character study. (Maybe that’s the biggest different between “Bottle Rocket” and “Rushmore.” A sense of focus on one character.) Max certainly proves to be one of Anderson’s most memorable characters. A hero to a whole generation of overachievers, attempting to do everything at once without really succeeding at any of them, the character is a little hard to pin down and could very well be unique. Maybe most interesting is how the movie avoids the typical coming-of-age story clichés. Max grows throughout the story but how much does he really mature? Maybe the most important lesson he grabs is which battles to fight. Either way, Jason Schwartzman is awesome, fully becoming the character, delivering a break-out part if I’ve ever seen one.

Another important event to happen here was Anderson’s first collaboration with Bill Murray. A lot has been written about the direction Murray’s career would take following this film. His journey from cut-up Hollywood class clown into melancholy, slightly pretentious, indie film mainstay started here. It had been coming a long time. Murray isn’t just depressed the whole movie, providing plenty of laughs of his own, proving the comedy sophistication that was always lurking below the surface. Olivia Williams, playing the object of obsession for both man and boy, seems to one of the few semi-grown up people in the movie. She’s enchanting and you can see how easily both could fall for her. Points need to be thrown out to Mason Gamble and Stephen McCole, both hysterical, and Sara Tanaka, who I probably would’ve had a crush on if I she went to school with me.

All the other Anderson pieces are in place: The montages set to English pop music and the Mothersburgh score that’s as eccentric as the movie. It’s the first one hundred percent Wes Anderson movie and his first real triumphant. [Grade: A-]

Series Report Card: Star Trek (2009)

11. Star Trek

Go back a few of years. The duel failure of “Nemesis” and “Enterprise” has sunk “Star Trek,” with even the head of Paramount saying the franchise is dead. Over time, news trickles out concerning plans for a prequel. Right, because those always work out so well.

2007: Hotshot J.J. Abrams will be steering the new ship, retrofitting Trek’s old parts for today’s hip youth. Casting news, images, teaser trailers, release date changes, and more came steadily afterward, an uneasy cloud of uncertainty hanging over it all. Even after the kick-ass full trailer, I wasn’t sure it would be any good. Sitting in my theater seat, munching on my popcorn, I still wasn’t sure. Honestly, it wasn’t until about twenty minutes in I was convinced that this was going to rock. It gets off to a shaky start, what with the slightly unconvincing opening battle and Little Kirk rocking the Beastie Boys (Sabotaage, anyone?), and there are a smattering of problems: Abram’s over reliance on modern music video shaky-cam tactics and lens flares, uneven comic relief and Anton Yelchin’s jokey Chekov prime among them.

Ultimately, these squabbles are minor. The movie successfully revives the old girl. The universe is crafted with love for the past but risks are taken. In addition to the cool modern new look for everything, the story takes some big leaps and gleefully breaks established rules. While the phaser fights aren’t all great, the ship battles look more epic then ever before. The script is tight with the rescue of Pike and fate of the Federation providing a driving dramatic force. But, the characters have always been the heart of the matter and I’m happy to report the heart is healthy. The real revelation is Zachary Qunito as Spock. The amount of time and thought he put into the character is obvious. I love that you can see his conflict over his emotions in his face throughout. It is a phenomenal performance and, dare I say, better then the original.

A great thing about the script is how everyone gets equal screen time. Each crew member has a full arc and are important to the story. The rest of the cast easily cements themselves as the new versions of these classic characters. Chris Pine really had something to prove as Kirk. His bad boy persona straddles the line between likable rogue and cocky jackass but, ultimately, as the movie evolves, so does he. By the end, he has become a strong new interpretation of Captain Kirk. Pine thankfully doesn’t try to mimic Shatner’s mannerisms, but obviously has a grip on the role. Karl Urban perfectly channels DeForest Kelley, embodying the character of McCoy. Uhura was always a little underdeveloped, relegated to the girl’s part in a boy’s club. That’s fixed right away by the proactive script and Zoe Saldana’s solid portrayal. John Cho is as athletic and charming as Sulu ever was, even if his ninja flips are goofy. The one casting decision I was sold on from the beginning was Simon Pegg as Scotty. Sadly, he doesn’t show up until well into the second act but when he does, it’s awesome. While Eric Bana’s Nero isn’t a Khan level villain, he proves to be a strong adversary. I’m really glad Nimoy tagged along for this adventure. As much as I trust the new cast, it was great to have one of the veterans show up and pass the torch, insuring that while franchise has been taken in a new direction, it still respects the past.

The reason I really loved the movie is for the numerous cool nerd moments. Spock nerve pinches someone for the first time, Kirk’s continued skills with green-skinned babes, “Damn it Jim, I’m a doctor, not a…” The return of the brain slug, a Red Shirt getting fried, a subtle call out to those who disliked “Enterprise” (Poor Porthos!), the classic sound effects on the bridge… Honestly, I could go on and on. Abrams can deny it all he wants but this was obviously made by fans, for fans. Once again, “Star Trek” is flying high and boldly going. The world feels a little bit safer now. [Grade: A]

Series Report Card: Star Trek (1998-2002)

9. Star Trek: Insurrection

When “Star Trek: Insurrection” came out, it was met with typical disdain from the “odd/even rule” crowd but… I don’t know, I kinda’ like it. It’s far from perfect and, at the end of the day, might seem a little routine, but the movie certainly satisfies.

One of the main purposes behind the idea, I suspect, was to get “Trek” back to its roots with a smaller, more character oriented story. This turns out to be its biggest asset and problem. After the big action of “First Contact,” I honestly don’t mind a slower film. Indeed, one of the main themes revolves around being able to just sit back and experience being. The story of aging being reversed provides the majority of the cast with some interesting things to do. It actually gives Picard an excuse to play action hero, for once, and Stewart has some nice dramatic moments. Riker and Troi’s romance being rekindled is cute and provides Frakes with a more charismatic turn then usual. Data has a very important role and Spiner proves as entertaining to watch as ever. Worf shows up again with his DS9 duties being brush aside with a single line of dialogue while Geordi’s seeing for the first time provides at least one nice moment. (Dr. Crusher gets pushed to the side, as usual.)

One of the main reasons I like this one is because of the humor. Oh sure, some of it is maybe a little too broad (“Floatation device?” Oh brother.) but even some of the goofier stuff appealed to me. I found the entire Gilbert and Hammerstein sequence to be hysterical and there’s sharp, amusing dialogue spread all around. Once the focus shifts from the humor and characters and we get into the action stuff, things get a little less interesting. Though splitting the story worked in “First Contact,” having Riker and the Enterprise go off on a fight scene while Picard and crew stays on the planet was a mistake and schisms the pacing. All of planet sided action is quite successful while the ship battles are significantly more routine. Still, stuff wraps up in a nice fashion and I found the resolution genuinely heart touching. And, again, Jerry Goldsmith throws out another pretty score.

The biggest complaint measured against the film is that it feels like little more then a beefed up episode of the show. Granted, I feel that. Again, this has to due with the smaller story but also with how the story is almost completely removed from the rest of the “Trek” universe. Unlike previous entire, what goes on here hardly affects the universe at large. Of course, this was done to keep the movie accessible but even a casual fan such as myself admits that a Dominion War movie probably would’ve been cooler. (And that’s coming from somebody who barely watched “Deep Space Nine” and “Voyager.”)

It isn’t until later in the film when you find out the personal connection between the Son’a and the Ba’ku that they become legitimately interesting villains. The idea of a race of basically decomposing corpse determined to stay alive is visually captivating but underdeveloped. F. Murray Abraham brings a required amount of skill to his part but overplays it more often then not. The use of the holo-deck in the finale is obvious and I thought it was a little weak how Picard basically talks a bad guy into switching sides. Still, problems aside, “Insurrection” is a solid effort. It doesn’t reinvent the “Trek” wheel but entertains. [Grade: B]

10. Star Trek: Nemesis

By the time this movie came around “The Next Generation” had been off the air for nearly a decade. “Deep Space Nine” and “Voyager” were gone. The only viable “Trek” franchise was “Enterprise,” which most everyone seemed to agree was a bad idea right from the get-go. (Or right from the theme song, maybe.) My point is it was easy to be apathetic about the series when “Nemesis” came out. And, if the final movie was any evidence, it was even easy for the studios to be apathetic.

There are a multitude of problems, the main one being just a lack of fresh ideas. Far too much feels recycled. The screenwriter admitted in interviews that he patterned a great deal of the story on “Wrath of Khan,” which is only too evident, especially at the ending. The concept of Data having a double was all ready explored in the TV series, as was Troi being mind-raped. Sadly, the new stuff brought to table isn’t exciting either. The whole idea of the Romulan sister race, the Remians, manages to be fairly wasted. Though their deep sea fish inspired designs are interesting to look at, their sense of subjugation by the Romulians never comes through. For a fact, their relationship to the larger empire is mostly brushed aside, confined to two or three scenes. Shinzon, the evil clone of Picard, could’ve been a good idea, especially if the original idea of having Patrick Stewart play both parts was carried with. Instead, the character was given to some douche named Tom Hardy, who manages to punch up absolutely zero charisma. He’s never menacing, threatening, or even mildly interesting. Not even when he begins to get sick and slowly die does Hardy inspire any real feelings and especially not during the final showdown. If writer John Logan was hoping for another Khan, he really dropped the fucking ball.

The script itself features a lot of pretentious talks of destiny and trust that is totally superficial. B-4, the other new addition to the mythology, comes of as a mildly retarded version of Data, does next to nothing in the course of the story, and is such an obvious set-up for the final death cheat. When Data does go all Spock-sacrificing on us, it is totally devoid of emotion. Director Stuart Baird doesn’t provide any “You have and always will be my friend” moments and seems more focused on the big explosion.

Speaking of that Baird dick, on the DVD special features, he admits to not being a “Trek” fan and, as the esteemed director of “Executive Decision” and fucking “U.S. Marshals,” seems to think he’s above all this sci-fi goofiness. I could ignore him being a prick if his direction wasn’t so incredibly stale. Most of the action is phaser-based and composed of people getting shot and falling down. There’s also some dramatic slow-motion thrown in which, you know, was really fresh in 2002. The ship battles at the end are slightly better but still fairly boring, managing to filled with dramatic moments that carry no weight. Patrick Stewart and Bret Spinner both do their best with what their given, while Jonathan Frakes, with his digitally removed back hair, comes extremely close to embarrassing himself. He was too old to play action hero at this point. None of the other crew members are given much of anything to do.

There’s a handful of okay moments. The opening wedding sequence is sweet and when Data jumps from ship to ship through space is the sole dynamic action beat. Otherwise, “Star Trek: Nemesis” is a big plodding bore, adding next to nothing to the proud series legacy. Is it any surprise that it effectively brought an end to the series’ theater presence for years? [Grade: C-]