C.H.U.D.

31 Days  of Horror: Day 5

Have you seen C.H.U.D.?  Have you?  I remember getting excited for this one the very moment my friend explained the acronym: Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers.  Of course I want to watch a movie about C.H.U.D.s!  Of course I want to discuss C.H.U.D.s!  Who wouldn't?

C.H.U.D. begins the way you always knew, deep in your heart, that it had to begin: with a high-end photographer getting edgy, socially important photos from the safety of his apartment.  Cooper (John Heard) is tired of taking fancy, well-paying fashion gigs, because professional photographers hate receiving monetary compensation out of proportion to the work they do.  Cooper wants to track down some homeless people he photographed last year, but he can't track them down --- and he's looked everywhere in his apartment.

I'm saying you're an unsympathetic dick, dick.

Meanwhile, Police Captain Bosch (Christopher Curry) is in charge of the worst police precinct in the world.  That's not a plot point, it is just a conclusion I have reached from the fact that every police officer we see in this movie is either lazy, stupid, or a complete asshat.

...or all three

Captain Bosch is hushing up a series of missing persons cases, but one of them also happens to be his wife.  That's right, Bosch is covering up disappearances that are similar to his wife's.  No, he (probably) did not murder his wife.  Even more meanwhile, there is a savvy crime beat reporter who asks the police clever questions, like "What's going on, Bosch?"  The man is clearly driven to uncover an important story.  Beyond meanwhile, over in Meanwhileington, a filthy, greasy ex-con (Daniel Stern), who is running a soup kitchen for the homeless, decides to report some of his regulars as missing persons.

"You forgot to describe me as 'probably contagious'"

How are these seemingly disparate plot threads united?  By C.H.U.D.s, of course.  It turns out that Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers are eating (hint: cannibalistic) people, especially those who wander too close to the sewers.  Or, in the case of some of the homeless, those that choose to live in the sewers.

"Sure beats the coal mine we must have just emerged from"

But what does a C.H.U.D. look like?  C.H.U.D.-ish?  C.H.U.D.-derly?  C.H.U.D.-tastic?  All good guesses, and none of them are wrong.  Specifically, though, they look like this:

Now, all we need to know is what is causing these C.H.U.D.s to C.H.U.D. (yes, C.H.U.D. is a noun and a verb), and why the government is covering up our hot C.H.U.D. on C.H.U.D. action! their existence!

Let's talk about the acting in C.H.U.D., shall we?  There are some decent actors in this movie, after all.  Jon Polito, John Goodman, and (to a far lesser extent) Jay Thomas all make early career appearances, but they are extremely bit parts. 

Above: John Goodman, moments before the only time something in a movie ate him

The top-billed actor is actually John Heard.  I don't know why that is, since he is the whiniest character in the film and does the least good.  For my money, it is Daniel Stern's turn as AJ that deserved the limelight.  Not only is he the most reasonable character in the movie --- not counting his grooming habits, obviously --- but he has his own name, AJ, tattooed on his arm.

There aren't many good shots of it, but here's a cropped version:

That's right.  Not only does he have his own name as a prison tattoo, but it has lines coming out from it, like it's shining bright!  I don't know who thought of that, or what it means, but I fucking love it!  As far as his acting goes, Stern was competent in a movie full of awkward dialogue.  Christopher Curry was pretty terrible as Bosch, but he rocks a pretty nice cop 'stache.  I don't understand the early 80s and the insistence on giving Kim Greist work, but this is yet another movie that casts her as a supposedly beautiful and interesting love interest for the lead.  I haven't seen it work yet, but at least I did get to see her sprayed with blood this time.

With that vacant expression, this looks more like hazing than horror

Rounding out the notable cast, Sam McMurray did what he does best --- he played an unsympathetic asshole, and he did it perfectly.

C.H.U.D. is the only movie Douglas Cheek ever directed.  He apparently got the gig thanks to Daniel Stern and John Heard stumping for him.  Whatever the cause, he didn't do a very good job.  It's certainly not entirely his fault, but there isn't a single well-assembled scene in this movie.  There is no suspense or terror or horror.  Of course, this is a movie about Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers, so it's probably pretty stupid.  But that doesn't explain why my favorite scene in the entire film is this one:

AJ is being tailed by Alligator Shirt.  AJ stops to make a call on a payphone.  Alligator Shirt hangs up the phone before AJ can dial (it was a close tail), grabs the change, and then eats it.  And then they just look at each other.  Not a word has been said during this entire exchange.

I couldn't stop laughing.  I actually rewound that part to make sure it really happened.  Stern's puzzled look, paired with the blank smugness of Alligator Shirt was so beautifully awkward.  I can guarantee that Cheek had something other than abject hilarity in mind when he filmed that scene.  But it is really fair to lay all the blame on the director?  After all, somebody wrote a script for this.

According to CHUDFacts (which is an interesting, if sad, read), large chunks of the movie were ad-libbed or rewritten by Daniel Stern and Christopher Curry (IMDb even lists them as uncredited writers).  Given how it turned out, I wonder if this was anything like Sam Jackson signing on for Snakes on a Plane?

"We signed on to make a movie about Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers, dammit!"

Whatever the reasoning or background, this is a pretty dumb script, and the main source of entertainment is from the fact that there are things called C.H.U.D.s in the movie.

This is a horror movie, though, and C.H.U.D. does have "cannibalistic" creatures in it...how good is this movie by horror standards?  First of all, I am curious as to what makes these creatures cannibals.  We don't see C.H.U.D.s eating other C.H.U.D.s, we see them eating people; sure, we later learn that C.H.U.D.s are mutated people (who somehow all mutate the same way), but doesn't the description of them as "humanoid" kind of negate the cannibalism?  Am I being too nitpicky? 

Considering that I am not questioning them sharing the same wardrobe, the answer is "yes"

Anyway, while the title promises a fun horror experience for genre fans, there isn't much in the actual film itself.  If you are a fan of gore, there is one shot of a wounded leg, blood spattering out of a shower drain, and a C.H.U.D. head gets sliced off with a sword (that was conveniently in an apartment).  If you are into special effects, there still isn't much.  The C.H.U.D. costumes are quite obviously just gloves and masks, so very little of them are show on-camera.  For instance, this is the only unobscured shot of the C.H.U.D.s that ate John Goodman:

It's not bad, but if you have the C.H.U.D.s attacking a well-lit diner, we should see a little more.  The only way a film can get away without showing much of its monsters is if it does a great job setting a tone of suspense; it also helps if the story provides a lot of darkness and shadows.  This movie does neither.  So, gore and special effects are underwhelming...what about sex and violence?  Strikes three and four.  Little of either to be seen, and if there was some, it would probably be pretty comical.

BUT.

I truly believe C.H.U.D. is worth watching.  Is it dumb?  Yes.  Is it poorly made?  Unapologetically so. Is it a little slow getting to the C.H.U.D.s?  Definitely.  Despite all that, I think this movie is a pretty fun watch.  I might not recommend watching it alone and/or sober, but I think there is something lovably goofy at the core of this concept.  (Hint: that "something" is the acronym C.H.U.D.)

Argo

So what's the big deal about Argo?  Aside from the fact that it sounds like something a pirate might say, I mean.  Argo is one of those movies that wears its "based on a true story" claim as a badge of honor.  There are two types of movies that push claims like that: movies that want to be capital "I" Important and movies that are so unbelievable that they have to legitimize themselves by pointing out that the unbelievable sometimes actually happens.  Which is Argo?  A little from column A, a little from column B.

When the American embassy in Iran was invaded in 1979, there were six embassy employees that managed to sneak out and avoid being part of the Iran hostage crisis.  They weren't able to leave the country, though.  Every Westerner (or, I guess, anybody looking American) was closely monitored and security in and out of the country was multiplied.  The six escapees managed to find shelter with the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber), but they couldn't go anywhere or do anything, or else they would risk becoming hostages and probably being executed.  To make matters worse, circumstances (or the plot) dictate that the escapees have to leave soon or not at all.  That's where Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) comes in.  When all other half-baked, dumb-ass ideas for getting those people out of Iran appear doomed for failure, Tony comes up with something ambitious and outlandish --- although it is still a pretty awful idea.

These are the faces of men smelling shitty ideas

Tony wants to pass these six people off as part of a film crew, because everyone knows that Hollywood is full of complete jackasses who eat up stupid ideas, like filming a movie in we-have-American-hostages-era Iran.  Like all cover stories and identities, this needs to be able to pass the sniff test in case anybody doubts their claims.  That means that Tony needs to create a fake movie.

"Should we make a Reindeer Games or Gigli joke?"

To do that, he needs help from some Hollywood types (John Goodman and Alan Arkin) to convince Hollywood that a terrible science fiction movie called "Argo" (that should be filmed in Iran) is actually in production.  If they can convince Hollywood, they should be able to convince Iranian militants, right?  Once all that is done, all they have to do is confidently sneak six Americans out of the country while lying their asses off.  Piece of cake.

"Hello, do you have any unmonitored or under-guarded ways out of this lovely country?"

Argo is definitely the work of an ensemble cast.  Ben Affleck is on all the posters and gets the majority of the acclaim for this movie, thanks to his direction, but there are no star roles here.  Ben Affleck is good and understated as a CIA operative that specializes in getting people out of bad places.  While he is the main character, the star of this movie is the plot, so all of the actors are basically playing character roles.  This is probably my favorite Bryan Cranston movie role to date, if only because he had multiple dimensions.  John Goodman was clearly having fun lampooning Hollywood, but the best supporting actor in this cast was definitely Alan Arkin, who...well, I guess he did more or less the same thing as Goodman, but crankier.  They were both fun to watch and helped balance out the rest of the film, especially with their "Argo fuck yourself" bit.  The rest of the cast was made up of recognizable actors in uncomplicated or tiny roles.  Victor Garber, Tate Donovan, Clea DuVall, Kyle Chandler, Rory Cochrane, Christopher Denham, Kerry Bishé, and Zeljko Ivanek all lent their presence to this movie more than any particular acting skills.

Look at this crap.  They haven't even memorized their lines!

It is nice to see Chandler getting work in high-profile movies, but he (and Bryan Cranston) needs meatier roles to show off his talent.  Of the six not-hostages, Scoot McNairy was the only one that actually developed as the movie progressed.  Of course, that was because he was the obstinate jerk character, but I still thought McNairy was pretty good.

Argo is the third movie directed by Ben Affleck, and the first one set outside of Boston.  This is also his first attempt at something that isn't a crime story.  Affleck's biggest impact on Argo is the sense of urgency.  The pacing in this movie is excellent, especially in the second half.  That is remarkable, considering that this is, at its core, a movie about people waiting to go to the airport.

THRILLS ABOUND!

It's hard to gauge how well Affleck directs the actors, since this movie is so plot-driven.  I guess he was fine in that regard, since everyone played their parts decently.  The other aspect of the film that I was impressed with was the production design.  Granted, it can't be that hard to re-create 1979 in Hollywood, but the side-by-side comparisons between the real-life people and places and the stuff in the movie was eerily accurate.  Attention to detail is important in all movies, but realizing just how much effort went into duplicating every single thing on the screen made me wonder what little things I took for granted in this film.

The actual magazine ad for "Argo" in the Hollywood Reporter

Argo is a tense, funny, and generally entertaining film that has a little more gravitas because it is based on true events.  How accurate is this movie?  With a few minutes of research, I would say "fairly," with most of the liberties being taken for pacing reasons.   I've seen and heard a few comments about the subject matter of Argo (with the least nutty objection coming from Daniel Tosh), and I see their point.  Why make a movie about the six people who were not held hostage and tortured?  Probably because the US and Canada didn't team up to fake a goofy movie as a means to sneak out the 50-odd hostages.  Argo is a good movie, and is one of the better true-life adaptations I have seen in a while.  It is missing performances that will draw me back to it, but I am now fully on board with Ben Affleck (the director). 

If you're interested in the back story on this script, it appears that comic book legend Jack Kirby did a number of concept drawings for the movie-that-never-was.  Cool stuff.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

There are few movies that I am less inclined to see than the "tearjerker."  I have nothing against tears or jerking, it's just...well, why watch a sad movie, when there are explosions to be had?  Sadly, I did watch Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (not ...Uncomfortably Close, as I have often misquoted the title), because it was nominated for 2011's Best Picture Oscar.  While I am not a big fan of sentimental films, the book this is based on was written by the author of Everything Is Illuminated, which is a decently weird movie.  Maybe there is something more than sad in this film...?  Maybe...?

Oskar (Thomas Horn) is a weird kid.  You might think that he is autistic or something, but apparently the tests came back inconclusive.  Anyways, he's a weird kid dealing with some heavy tragedy.  Oskar's natural weirdness makes it difficult for him to deal with the real world, much less other human beings.  Luckily, his father (Tom Hanks) understands him and goes to great lengths to get Oskar out of his shell.  For instance, dad gives Oskar frequent quests, where Oskar must follow the clues to a hidden treasure of questionable value; Oskar has fun and employs critical thinking while his dad makes sure he interacts with strangers and faces other vaguely autistic fears.

...Like touching the floor --- it's lava, you know...!

Then, everything goes pear-shaped.  Dad is, by a fluke of his schedule, caught in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, which Oskar refers to as "the worst day."  He calls home several times, but his wife (Sandra Bullock) isn't home and Oskar can't bring himself to answer. Dad dies.  A year later, an increasingly isolated Oskar stumbles across a key amidst his late father's belongings.  Believing this to be part of one of his scavenger hunts, Oskar decides to scour New York City for information leading to the destination for his mystery key.  You can't just figure out what a fairly anonymous key goes to without introducing yourself to a few dozen random strangers, though, so Oskar forces himself out of his shell to unlock his father's final puzzle.  In the meantime, I think we can all assume that he'll discover something more symbolic and puppet-stringing, right?

Look, I don't have a particular problem with stories that use September 11th as a backdrop.  It's emotionally inflammatory, but I understand that there are a lot of good stories that revolve around that date.  Honestly, I doubt that World Trade Center and United 93 are great films, but I respect the need to make them. In a way, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is a lot like Bruce Springsteen's The Rising; it may not necessarily be about September 11th, but it certainly is flavored by it.

September 11 is one of those moments in history where you are supposed to remember where you were and what you were doing when the shit went down.  Personally, I was lucky enough to be in college at the time, catching the early action on morning television, before being stunned with my friends in a dormitory common room.  For the record, I still went to all my classes that day, although there weren't many that were worth attending that day.

It's not your fault, Max

Once you get beyond the emotional mindfuck that comes from a plot that deals with senseless tragedy, you might find yourself focusing on the actors.  Thomas Horn is the main character, and I completely understand if you found him irritating; he isn't exactly autistic (he's somewhere on the spectrum, though), but he's very peculiar and odd enough to stick out, even in New York City.  I can't say that his peculiarities bothered me, but I understand if they bothered you.

Okay, that tambourine irritated the shit out of me

Tom Hanks was essentially what you want Tom Hanks to be in this movie; he was the perfect dad --- loving, clever, understanding, and demanding all in one Oscar-winning doughboy.  This is the most likable I have seen Hanks in almost a decade.  Sandra Bullock played his loving wife, who balances mind-numbing grief with plot twists bold enough to almost make you think she isn't the worst parent in NYC.

Reading your kid's diary doesn't make you a good parent

Max von Sydow gave a great performance as Oskar's helper/possible relative; it wasn't too difficult of a role, but he made the lack of dialogue seem irrelevant, which is the benchmark of a good actor in a gimmicky role.  Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright also played key small parts, and they were as good as you should expect them to be in supporting roles.  In other words, "very."  The only small role that confused me was John Goodman as the abrasive doorman; he was fine, but I was surprised to see such a fine actor in such a bit part.  I was not, however, surprised to see Chris Hardwick playing a funeral director; I love the guy, but he's not much of an actor.

This isn't Stephen Daldry's first Best Picture-nominated film, you know.  He made The Reader and The Hours, not to mention Billy Elliot back in the day.  For some reason, though, I feel the need to justify Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close as an Oscar contender.  This is, without a doubt, a well-made film.  There is nothing technically flawed in this movie.  If you have studied film style, you will find EL&IC a cornucopia of established film styles.  And yet...and yet...this is kind of a dull film.

Don't get me wrong.  Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close will make you cry.  I you don't weep, your heart is made of ash and you probably rape penguins for fun.  That doesn't make this a great film.  Instead, it feels a lot like a well-made simulation of human emotion.  The story is a little drawn out and more than a little obvious, but the pacing is excellent and the gradual reveals are expertly done.  At the very least, it makes sure to hit as many broad emotional marks as it can; if you have a strained relationship with your mother, then consider this the reason you call your mom crying this year.  If you are on solid ground with your parents...well, you might as well give them a call, since the inevitable zombie apocalypse is on its way, anyhow...

I happen to have a pretty solid relationship with my parents, so that little guilt trip didn't make Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close strike a chord for me.  Is this a great film?  Absolutely not.  It is a very well-acted and well-directed Lifetime movie of the week.  The loose connection to a tragedy makes it seem more relevant, but the key to this film is that "the worst day" shouldn't influence every single day.  I completely understand if this movie hits home for you, though, since it does strike some very basic chords.  However, if you are lucky enough to A) not be directly affected by this tragedy and B) not fight with your parents, then this film will not provide the Oscar "oomph" you may be expecting from a nominee.

The Artist

***included in Brian's Best and Worst of 2011***

Back in September, I stumbled across OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies.  I had seen the DVD cover art before and curiosity finally got the better of me, so I watched it with little to no foreknowledge.  I was treated to a likable and extremely clever (but not as funny) French spoof of 1960s spy movies.  The cleverness of the story made me extremely curious to see more of the director, Michel Hazanavicius, and the star, Jean Dujardin.  As luck would have it, the most acclaimed film of 2011 happened to be The Artist, which paired the star and director once more.

...and the director's wife, who was also in OSS 117.  Nepotism leads to Oscar nominations.

In 1927, George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a huge silent film star.  Everything he touches seems to turn to gold, and his skills seem to apply equally to romances, action/adventure flicks, and comedies.

George Valentin: Eastern Orthodox Hollywood icon

One day, while posing for pictures outside his most recent film premiere, George is accidentally bumped by a young lady in the crowd, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo).  Being a suave celebrity, George opts not to punch her in the face, and instead laughs it off and poses for pictures with Peppy, to the delight of all.  Seriously, look at that crowd, they're acting like they're at a bachelorette party.

My personal favorite is the woman by his elbow

Peppy happens to be an aspiring actress that idolizes George.  She manages to get a role as an extra on one of George's movies, and the two show a lot of chemistry and sexual attraction. In fact, the two almost act upon that attraction, but the moment passed and so they went on with their lives.  Young Peppy started to work her way up in the movie business, while George took a slightly different approach.  When the head of the movie studio (John Goodman) shows George a prototype of a film with a vocal track, George scoffs at it, declaring it a toy.  From that point forward, George is fighting a losing battle against the idea of sound in film while Peppy --- being an up-and-comer --- wisely rides the "talkies" to fame and fortune.

I suppose there's a bit more to the story than the rise of one performer and the fall of another, but that's the plot in a nutshell.  If it sounds familiar to you, that's because it should; this basic premise has been used many times over.  What separates The Artist from, say, All About Eve is the choice to make this movie about a silent film actor into a silent film.  To be fair, it's not entirely silent; there are a handful of words spoken and some interesting sequences where sound was selectively added, but the movie on the whole plays like a classic silent movie (just with superior film stock).

The silent movie schtick may seem like a gimmick at first, but it loses that feel after watching Jean Dujardin on camera for a little while.  I don't know if he will ever be able to transform into a Hollywood star (his accent is pretty thick --- not a deal-breaker, but still...), but Dujardin was wonderful in The Artist.  I can't pinpoint exactly why I liked him so much without making it sound like a backhanded compliment, though.  Dujardin is able to act like the stereotype of a mediocre actor; he has expressive eyebrows and a giant smile, which he utilizes in most of his "on-camera" scenes in this film.  He also conveys some very realistic emotions quite subtly in other moments.  It was a well thought out performance that was executed nearly perfectly.

Bonus points for not being stereotypically movie drunk

Bérénice Bejo was likable as the blossoming star, Peppy, but her character wasn't all that deep.  She wanted to be a star, she achieved that goal, and she wanted to help her friend.  We don't actually have to care about her character very much at all --- we just have to understand what she represents to George Valentin.  I think that was a missed opportunity.  Still, she did have her moments; I really liked the playful scene where she pretended to be romanced by Valentin's coat.

How ugly do you have to be to require this much work?

John Goodman was, as always, a welcome addition to the cast.  His character was pretty simple, but Goodman has made a career out of making simple characters entertaining to watch.  I think James Cromwell was under-appreciated for his turn as the loyal manservant to Valentin; Cromwell often is cast as a harsh authority figure, and it was nice to see him playing such a sweet character.  I was a little surprised by how many recognizable Hollywood actors played small roles in The Artist.  Penelope Ann Miller essentially just defaced George Valentin memorabilia whenever she was on camera, Missi Pyle was suitably obnoxious as a famous actress, Malcolm McDowell just sat in a scene, Ed Lauter showed up just long enough for his face to ring a bell, and Ken Davitian managed to not be involved in a penis-related gag for a change.  Perhaps the biggest scene-stealer in the film was Uggie, the dog.  The sequences with Uggie were certainly cute, and the animal is clearly very well-trained.  That said, it's a dog; get over it, America.

***whimper***

Dujardin's excellent acting certainly goes a long way toward making the whole silent-film-thing less of a gimmick and more of an interesting choice, but it is the direction of Michel Hazanavicius that truly makes The Artist and interesting film to watch.  There are very few directors currently working who are willing to make interesting choices while making a film.  Those choices don't necessarily have to work (Malick, I'm looking at you), but their films are usually made far more enjoyable when they do.  Hazanavicius took a high concept and managed to add a solid story and some excellent acting to it.  While I like the choice he made, I still think the story is a bit weak and uses the silence to help mask that problem.  On the other hand, Hazanavicius also used the silence to convey some not especially subtle, but still easily overlooked character moments.  I really liked that Penelope Ann Miller was wearing a different piece of jewelry in each of her scenes; the audience knows she's unhappy because she keeps marking up every picture of George she can find, but I thought that was a nice additional touch.  What I truly appreciated in the film was Hazanavicius' frame composition.  It pops up periodically throughout the movie, but the symbolism on the movie studio staircase after Valentin was fired was gorgeous.  The Artist is a movie that understands film style and uses it to convey ideas with images, instead of through exposition, and that was a bit of a treat for me.

The Artist is a very clever film that deserves accolades for daring to do things differently.  Are you going to like it?  Well...that's a tough call.  On the plus side, it is a huge change of pace from anything else that came out last year.  It is also well-acted and well-directed, so if you like examining cinematography or acting subtleties, this should be a good time for you.  On the other hand, it is still a silent movie, and that might make the film drag at times for the less snobby film fan.  It's certainly a cute movie, but it doesn't have a whole lot of depth; the best trait The Artist has is just how clever it is, but that might not be a strong enough selling point for everyone.

Red State

It has been a long, long time since I have watched a Kevin Smith movie.  I've never been  big fan of Clerks, but I enjoyed the juvenile humor in Mallrats and the ham-fisted Dogma the first time I saw them.  Unfortunately, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was one of the most painful film experiences I have ever endured; thanks to all the winking and nudging, it is the only comedy to make my Most Hated Movie list.  Since then, I have steered clear of Smith's films.  Red State intrigued me, though.  Kevin Smith, a one-time master of filthy and stupid-funny dialogue, writing and directing a horror movie?  There is potential in that premise, assuming that Smith maintains his juvenile sense of humor and makes a solid slasher flick with plenty of smart-ass dialogue.  But you know what they say about assumptions...

Red State begins with three friends --- Jarod (Kyle Gallner), Travis (Michael Angarano), and Billy-Ray (Nicholas Barn) --- of roughly college age scheming to get laid.  Okay, here are our naughty teens; the horror movie is underway.

And yes, Billy-Ray's name is just an excuse for a mullet

Jarod has been frequenting a website that specializes in connecting locals for relationship-free sex; in fact, the "woman" (because, after all, it is the internet) doesn't want to have sex with just Jarod --- she wants him to bring two friends along for some simultaneous loving.  Sure, that's a little unusual, but men are simple and the trio takes the request at face value.  On their way to the sexing, the trio accidentally sideswipes a parked car to introduce a subplot that never really pays off.

Direct quote: "Hamina, hamina, hamina...!"

Instead of seeing the accident as a bad omen --- or leaving a note, exchanging insurance information, or even trying the State Farm jingle to get one of their insurance genies to pop up --- the three youngsters continue on their journey to satisfy their lusty flesh.  The good news is that they find the woman, and she is really a woman named Sara (Melissa Leo).  The bad news is that she is a little older than the boys were expecting.

The really bad news is that Sara drugs them and they wake up as captives of the extreme Five Points Church.  Huh?

You see, in the background of that story, viewers learned about the local murder of a young homosexual in town, and we see his funeral being picketed by members of the Five Points Church, which is a none-too-subtle analogue for the Westboro Baptist Church.  As you might surmise from the fact that they picketed a funeral, Five Pointers are not a sect known for their calm demeanor or reasonable actions.  As such, our three horny teens have been held captive so they may be executed in God's name for sinning against him.  What follows is an intense look at the rhetoric of American hate groups and the tension that comes from waiting for your own execution.

Ball gags: rarely a good sign

No, not really.  The ATF is eventually contacted, surrounds the house, and royally screws up, a la Waco.  And that, more or less, leads to the end.

Red State is not a typical horror movie, even if it starts out like your average slasher flick.  What could have been a decently effective premise --- teens up to no good are captured and need to escape --- quickly turns into a showcase for Kevin Smith to show how crazy extreme religious people are.  Smith doesn't add anything clever or interesting to the larger argument here, and I seriously doubt that anyone who watches this film will on the side of the hate group.  Even with Smith's heavy-handed diatribe, this could have been an effective horror movie.  Unfortunately, Smith adds a further twist by introducing a firefight between the church group and the ATF.  So...there goes the horror element.  Furthermore, the focus of the story shifts to ATF Agent Keenan (John Goodman), who is heading the operation.  Is his mission to save the three kidnapped boys?  Actually, he isn't even aware of them.  What the hell is this movie supposed to be about, then?

That's my biggest problem with Red State.  The plot is just a mess.  Smith over-complicates things, includes uninteresting subplots and can't focus on a main character or theme.  There are only a few moments where his trademark humor shows up, and the quips are obvious and not very funny.  I was surprised to see how poorly plotted, paced, and edited Red State was.  This is his tenth feature film as a director, and his ninth as a writer --- how could this film's direction be so horribly inept?  My only explanation is that this is Smith's first venture outside of the comedy genre and, without the crutch of dick jokes, his shortcomings as a director are exposed here.

And here, he displays his shortcoming for context-driven humor

Most of the acting in the film is decent, if uninspired.  John Goodman is certainly likable as an ATF agent, but his character's motivations are poorly explained and quickly discarded without any conflict.

To shoot or not to shoot: never mind, there are no consequences

Of the three sex-crazed boys, only Kyle Gallner has the opportunity to act, and I wasn't terribly impressed with his bored display of suicidal tendencies.  Kerry Bishe was definitely the best actor amongst the churchgoers,but her role was also the most over-dramatic.  I was disappointed in Melissa Leo's over-the-top performance as a zealot.

I was, however, very impressed with Michael Parks as the creepy/evil preacher.  While his character was never written with the intention of being convincing, Parks took a horrible villain and added some much-needed charisma, making this nutcase seem plausible, like a modern-day Charles Manson.

Add a self-carved forehead swastika, and you're there

There are also a number of recognizable bit players in the film; Kevin Pollack, Patrick Fischler, and Stephen Root all contribute next to nothing to this film.

There is a solid premise behind this film, but the story loses its way far too early.  I hate the fact that you never know who the main characters are.  Failing that, I should at least be able to clearly identify what the main conflict in the movie will be, but that is left as a second-act surprise.  I despise Smith's straw man arguments against organized religion, and I felt that this was another none-too-clever attack on a subject that demands attention and pondering.  To put it bluntly, Red State handles religious extremism with even less thought than Dogma. 

On your knees and repent!

Worse than the heavy-handedness of the religious story was the total incompetence of Kevin Smith as a director.  This movie wasn't funny, scary, or effectively action-packed.  It has elements of all three genres, but they do not gel together because they are rarely present within the same scene, much less the same film reel.  Personally, I think Kevin Smith is a genuinely entertaining man.  Even if I had never found one of his jokes funny, I would have to admit that he is a talented storyteller, if only because of his Prince anecdote.  Unfortunately, he is not much of a writer or director.  I would love to see Smith bounce back from this with a heartfelt story of his dramatic weight loss or something vaguely realistic, because his strength comes from the way he describes the ordinary.  Red State has him working outside of his comfort zone and the result is half-baked, at best, and truly dull at worst.