The Cabin in the Woods

I was interested in The Cabin in the Woods from the moment I saw the poster at the movie theater.  I've always wanted to see a Joss Whedon horror movie, and his co-writer/producer credit here is as close as he's gotten to a classic horror film (unless you count Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which I don't).  After a strong recommendation from Judas Pato, I had planned to catch it in theaters, but life got in the way and I waited until it was on Blu Ray.  The only reason I was simply "interested" in this movie and not "pee-my-pants excited" was because co-writer/director Drew Goddard had never actually directed anything before.  Like, at all.  On the one hand, it's not like you have to be a veteran director to make a good horror movie, but a little experience never hurts, right?

Cabin in the Woods starts out the way you might think it should.  A group of college coeds are heading off to a remote cabin to enjoy a weekend of drugs, alcohol and sex.  There is the jock (Chris Hemsworth), the slutty vixen (Anna Hutchinson), the stoner (Marty, played by Fran Kranz), the smart guy (Jesse Williams), and the virgin, Dana (Kristen Connolly).

You know, your average group of twentysomethings that are actually probably thirtysomething

Only...none of them actually fit those cookie-cutter molds.  Except Marty, because he is high as a muthafucka, or (as I like to call it) "awful roommate high."  These kids start out as well-rounded characters, but something just seems to change when they get out of their RV and spend some time in the cabin.  Granted, it's a creepy old cabin.  It's a little scary from the outside, but it has all sorts of mounted animal heads on the wall, and this picture in one of the bedrooms:

This is what you hang in the bathroom to subtly discourage guests

Things get even stranger after the group pokes around in the basement.  There, they find a number of curious objects, including a diary.  When Dana reads an inscription from the diary aloud, it awakens a family of hillbilly zombies from the grave.  Will these innocent coeds be able to fight off this undead terror?  Actually, surprisingly, that's not a big issue.  The better question is why are office workers monitoring everything going on in and around the cabin?  And what kind of a monster is Kevin?

"I'd rank him above the angry molesting tree, but beneath the dismemberment goblins"

In case the whole office-drones thing didn't clue you in, The Cabin in the Woods is not your typical horror movie.  It is, however, extremely aware of typical horror movies.  Specifically, horror movie tropes.  I'll get more into that in a bit, but it should be pointed out to the curious that this is a love letter to the horror movie genre.

If this image doesn't whet your appetite, you may want to try Saw XIII

The acting in The Cabin in the Woods is pretty solid.  The hottest actor in this cast is probably Chris Hemsworth, and it was nice to see him play an everyday sort of guy.  It was odd that his character never seemed to let go of his football (Remember, he's the jock!), but Hemsworth played his part well and showed that he can deliver witty dialogue.  He wasn't the main character, though.  That responsibility falls on Kristen Connolly, who was simply likable.  She didn't really stand out to me, but I never disliked her character and I thought the part was played well.  The standout in the cast was Fran Kranz, and he turned in one of the best stoner performances in cinema history.  He looks and talks kinda like Shaggy, but he had the best lines and delivery in the entire film.

"Like, zoinks!"

Speaking of actors who know a good line when they read it, Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford brought the B-plot to life.  It should be no surprise that these guys work well with witty dialogue, but it never hurts to say it out loud.  One of the nice things about this cast, though, is that they all had the benefit of a pretty clever script, which made otherwise dull roles a bit more fun to watch.  Amy Acker definitely benefited from that, as did Anna Hutchinson and Jesse Williams.  And, hey, Sigourney Weaver had a solid cameo, too.  Really, it didn't matter how many dumb things they were required to do as part of the script; they all knew what to do with the lines they were given.

Although not having Hutchinson sing "Oh, Wolfie" was a missed opportunity

I gave the script a lot of credit for how enjoyable the actors were in The Cabin in the Woods, and I don't think that can be overstated.  I am a big fan of Joss Whedon's quip- and pop-culture-heavy dialogue, and Drew Goddard has a history of working on Whedon's TV shows; when you factor that into my love of horror movies, it's pretty obvious that I am the target audience for The Cabin in the Woods.

I would rent the hell out of that cabin

It's not just the dialogue, though.  There are a ton of references and homages to horror movie cliches, and they're all funny --- the "let's stay together/let's split up" bit was priceless.  And those weren't even the funniest parts!  I almost fell off the couch when the Japanese subplot was resolved with a happy frog.  And the list of names on the betting board...!  There are so many instances of pure gold in this movie that I wanted to do an old-timey prospector jig!

Even better than those little tributes was the way that the script justified the actions of your typical dumb horror movie.  That.  Was.  Brilliant.  There was one notable omission, but I'll touch on that shortly...

Okay, so I liked the acting and writing of The Cabin in the Woods.  How about Drew Goddard's direction?  He did almost everything right.  The production values were excellent.  This movie felt like the same amount of attention went into a detail that was on-screen for a split-second as went into the main characters.

Meet Fornicus, Lord of Bondage and Pain, and star of maybe 3 seconds of this film

The action in this movie looked good, the editing was spot-on in terms of maximizing comedic potential.  The cinematography was...well, it was fairly standard, but I won't hold that against him.  The important thing is that he was able to tell a story, a surprisingly complicated story, in a way that made sense.  I'm sure that the story falls apart a little if you watch with a more critical eye, but there was more than enough polish for me to not notice.  My main gripe with Goddard's direction is that there were no scares in this homage to horror movies.

Cool monsters, yes.  Scares, no.

It felt like the entire focus was on being clever --- which was done quite well, admittedly --- which left the true scares no room to grow.  Even when there was a kill that was well-done, the frequent cutting to the office drones commenting on the next trope robbed The Cabin in the Woods of any sense of suspense or drama.  I actually liked the main characters of this movie.  That never happens in horror flicks!  If you are going to develop these characters, I don't see how you can choose not to make their fates dramatic.

How does this scene not lead to horror gold?!?

That's really the only negative feedback I have for The Cabin in the Woods.  This isn't supposed to be as comedic as Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, but it also has fewer legitimate scares than Club Dread.  These three films have a lot in common (good scripts and gore, for instance), but The Cabin in the Woods is waaay smarter and is technically better in almost every way, except slapstick humor.  And yet the movie seems to outsmart itself at times.  I would have loved to jump in my seat at any point instead of laughing very hard when Thor rides his motorcycle.  For as much as I enjoy this movie --- and rest assured, I will be buying it and re-watching it many times --- I was left a little disappointed by the complete lack of horror.  Maybe I won't mind that lack the next time I watch this, now that I know what's in store, but for now I can only say that it's a lot of fun to watch.

Aliens

What a brilliant concept.  Even if Aliens had not been made in 1986, seven years after Alien, we would have had a sequel made at one point or another.  Following up on Ridley Scott's brilliant sci-fi/horror masterpiece was inevitable.  You have a unique universe, filled with fantastic-looking monsters, and the original was received well; of course a sequel had to be made.  What makes James Cameron's take so smart is that he opted to make a film entirely different from the original.  Why make a pale imitation when you can carve your own path, right?

Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) survived the destruction of her ship, the Nostromo, but it took almost sixty years for anyone to find her escape pod.  When she awakes from her space sleep/hibernation, she learns that nobody believes her story about the alien that killed her crew; with the Nostromo destroyed, she has no physical evidence, and the higher-ups in the Weyland-Yutani Corporation (AKA "The Company" from the first film) imply that they believe she is making up her story as a defense for blowing up one of their expensive ships.  Why would Ripley even need physical evidence?  Because the species she encountered has never been observed by humans --- at least, none who survived.  In fact, the planet where Ripley's team found the alien is now a terraformed colony, and none of the colonists have ever encountered such a creature.  Naturally, not being believed doesn't make Ripley very cheery.  When you combine that with the fact that she has now outlived all her loved ones, including her child, you get some serious Captain America-style angst.

On the bright side, she gets to work with mechanical crab-hands

Shortly, Ripley gets a visit from Burke (Paul Reiser), a slimy Company bureaucrat, and Corporal Hicks (Michael Biehn).  Apparently, the entire space colony on the planet where Ripley found the alien has stopped communicating.  The Company's solution to the problem is, smartly, not to send an exploration team.  Instead, they are sending in Colonial Marines to kill anything that looks even slightly funny on that planet. 

It's called "The Carrot Top Defense"

Burke and Hicks want Ripley along as a consultant.  If the colony's problem is another alien like the one Ripley encountered --- which is a long shot, at best --- she might be able to offer some in-the-moment insight.  She won't be fighting, she won't see the creature, she will just sit on the ship and observe.  Yeah.  Right.  As the title states, this is not about a singular alien; this is about alienS, and they are very plural in this colony.

As I mentioned before, there is a huge shift in tone from Alien to Aliens.  Instead of trying to recreate the suspense of the original film, director James Cameron made a bad-ass action movie.  Sure, one alien is scary if you have no weapons, but how about a hundred aliens against a metric ton of guns?  That choice makes Aliens a lot less scary than Alien, but it is also a hell of a lot more fun to watch.  If there is one thing that James Cameron has always had a handle on, it is how to portray spectacle on the big screen.  An entire colony filled with alien xenomorphs is so over the top when compared to the quiet desperation of the first film that it cannot be described as anything but a spectacle.  Well, I suppose you can also describe it as "totally awesome," too.

Suck it, Rambo

This time around, it is clear from the start that Ripley is the main character, so Sigourney Weaver's acting becomes more crucial.  I'm not the biggest fan of Weaver, but she gives an otherwise emotion-free script some humanity.  It's also nice to see her character evolve some of the traits shown briefly in the original film; when she takes command, the marines listen because she's saying sensible things with authority.  That couldn't have happened before this story, but it still makes sense within the character's progression.  I have to admit that I really enjoyed Paul Reiser's slimeball company man role.  I've never found Reiser particularly funny, so having a reason to dislike him was very cathartic for me.  It helps that he does a great job playing a despicable character.

Even in the future, the "popped collar" is a sign of douchiness

Leading the rest of the supporting cast is Michael Biehn as the likable marine and quasi-love interest for Ripley.  I've always liked Biehn, and seeing him as the calming influence in Aliens provided an interesting contrast to his "come with me if you want to live"-intensity in his other noteworthy roles.  I also have to admit that, while it certainly isn't subtle, I always smile when Hicks falls asleep on the drop from orbit.  Perhaps the biggest division I have seen amongst fans of this film is whether or not Bill Paxton is awesome here.  I definitely fall on the "hell, yes" side of the argument, but I see where the other side is coming from; Paxton's character speaks in cliches --- almost like an action figure come to life --- and his performance is so ridiculous that I'm pretty sure he delivered his lines IN ALL CAPS.  And his "badass" speech?  He could have described the marines as being "bushels of badasses" and it wouldn't have been any sillier than what he actually said.  But then, isn't that what makes his character's whimpering so entertaining?  He's a tough guy that ignores Ripley's advice and gets the ever-loving shit scared out of him.  Subtle?  Not exactly.  But it's damn entertaining work from an actor I typically dislike.

Game over, man!  Game over!

The only other cast members I cared about, one way or another, were Jenette Goldstein, Mark Rolston, and Lance Henriksen.  Henriksen was solid as a detached android, and it was nice to see that his character was substantially different than the android in Alien.  Goldstein and Rolston were even more action-figurey than Paxton --- I would argue that their acting and dialogue puts them on par with the cast of Predator --- but, like Paxton, their incredibly macho attitudes were pretty entertaining to watch.  Side note: I just realized that Jenette Goldstein also play the foster mother of John Connor in Terminator 2.  Too bad she didn't have the T-1000's abilities in this movie.

"You're just too bad, Vasquez"

James Cameron's style lends itself well to big-budget action movies, especially ones that don't spend a lot of time with emotions or thoughtfulness.  Yes, there is a little bit of commentary of corporate greed here, and I love that Paul Reiser was essentially more evil than the xenomorphs, but Aliens is definitely a movie that is best enjoyed by turning off your brain and just enjoying the show.  Some of the production values have aged poorly in the past twenty-six years (pretty much anything on the surface of the planet), but this movie still looks pretty great on the whole.  As much as I think that the majority of the acting in this movie is ridiculously over-the-top, I have to admit that it fits the characters and works well within the framework of this story.

Where are all the quips now, tough guy?

The mere fact that Cameron took the concept of the first film, completely changed the tone and situation, and still managed to make it cool speaks volumes for his vision as a director.  He may not be even close to a favorite, but he can make some fantastically entertaining stuff with the right concepts.

Cameron math: More, bigger monsters > one monster

The most amazing thing about Aliens, to me, is that it works.  As much as I enjoy the original film, I cannot deny how much fun this one is.  In fact, until I sat down to watch both back-to-back, Aliens had been my favorite entry in the series for years.  It's got cool monsters, a few minor scares, and a whole bunch of can-do action movie goodness --- what's not to like?  Well, aside from having to go fetch the little girl at the end because she's a plot device.  And the fact that Bill Paxton's character pulls the "I'm ___ days away from retirement" bit.  And this is the second movie in a row that has a surprise fourth act.  And nobody kills Paul Reiser.  Despite all of that, though, Aliens is a ton of fun to watch and still stands up there with Star Wars as one of the most enjoyable action/sci-fi movies ever made.

Enjoyable for most people, that is

Alien

There is never a bad reason to revisit the Alien franchise.  I've seen them all, every single Alien (the original, -s, -³, Resurrection, vs. Predator and vP: Requiem) and almost all of them are worth seeing, even if they're utter crap.  For whatever reason, as I waited to for a suitable time to go see Prometheus, I realized I hadn't watched the first two movies in almost a decade.  I can honestly do without the rest of the series (although AvP:R was pretty amusing), but those two are examples of greatness that do not often come along in science fiction.

Like curly hair and over-the-head headsets

I doubt I have anything too original to add to the chorus of positive reviews for Alien.  That won't stop me from reviewing it, but it does make outlining the plot in detail seem a bit unnecessary.  In short, some glorified intergalactic truckers on the spaceship Nostromo are forced (economically, not physically) to investigate a distress signal deep in Nebraska (AKA "middle-of-nowhere") space.  The signal comes from an alien vessel, and the aliens that sent it are long dead.  However, in the process of determining that fact, the crew of the Nostromo also accidentally encounter the creatures that killed off the aliens.  Worse, they bring one onto the ship with them and continue their voyage home.  Hence the tagline, "In space, no one an hear you scream."

"...Unless you have radios in your space suits, that is"

There's quite a bit more to it that just that, but explaining science fiction plots typically leads me to over-explaining them because I tend to find the little details in these movies fascinating.  And for people who enjoy reading into the production values of sci-fi movies, Alien is a treat.  Unlike just about every space flick before this one (Star Wars may be the earliest example I can think of for this), the spaceship and crew are not flawlessly clean; this is a universe where space travel has been around for a while, and there are spaceship equivalents of rust buckets.  This isn't a film that relies on special effects or fancy production values to succeed, but the unspoken history that the production design implies --- for the ship, for the spacesuits, for the alien species and crashed ship, etc. --- is very cool. 

Implication of the crew's appearance: fashion peaked in 1979

The acting in Alien is quite good for something that, on paper, amounts to a genre mish-mash.  I didn't realize it until I started browsing through their filmographies, but most of the cast in this film was fairly unknown at the time of its release; while many of the actors had been working for ten or fifteen years, they primarily played small character roles.  That means that the highest-profile actor in Alien is John Hurt, who received some award nominations the year before for his work in The Midnight Express.  As far as his performance goes, it was fine until it was rudely interrupted by his impending death.

Less erotic than it looks

Isn't that cool, though?  It's not something that a modern audience would think twice about, what with Sigourney Weaver starring in three other Alien pics, but having Hurt play the first victim is on par with Janet Leigh's surprise death in Psycho or Drew Barrymore's in Scream; you just don't expect the most well-known actor in the film to exit that early.  Thankfully, the non-Hurt cast is pretty respectable, so you don't really miss Hurt's gravelly voice too much as you're being sucked into this movie.  Obviously, Weaver is the star; she does a very good job here, assuming the lead as she makes smart and hard decisions and takes control when she has to.  This was her first major role, and she was pretty bad-ass for a lady with awful hair.  Tom Skerritt was definitely the second most likable and logical character in the film; Skerritt has never really wowed me as an actor, but he has always played authority figures well, even before he started going gray.  Yaphet Kotto, who I generally like, starts out the film utterly annoying, but he more than redeems himself by the end, playing up his fear and machismo as much as his small role would allow.  Harry Dean Stanton was Kotto's partner in crime, and he gave a typical Stanton performance.  He wasn't outstanding, but he always adds a bit of world-weariness to any role he's given.  Probably the best supporting character, though, was played by Ian Holm.  Already a veteran British Shakespearean actor by this point, Holm had yet to make much of an impression in an American film.  What I like about his performance is that it is subtle...until it suddenly isn't.

Tapioca and marbles: not key elements in "subtle"

Then he gets honest-to-goodness action scenes and a pretty fantastic special effects scene.  His character's reveal is a shock the first time you view it (unless you're familiar with the sequels, I suppose), and I really liked how his character acquiesced to certain things early on, but was still such a sinister company man at heart.  The only actor I didn't really care for was Veronica Cartwright, who more or less represented what Scott hoped the audience was feeling.  In other words, she whimpered and yelped a lot.

While I do like the acting in Alien, this is definitely not a film that relies heavily on a power performance.  This is a mood piece, more than anything else.  This was only the second film to be directed by Ridley Scott, but his direction is what makes this film so fantastic.  If Alien was simply a science fiction film, we would still be talking about Ridley Scott's team pre-production team.  I loved the look and feel of the ship, I liked the alien planet, and the futuristic tech on display (mostly in the form of the android) was very cool.  Of course, the best part of the production was the design of the xenomorph (AKA the titular alien).  How awesome is this thing?

It looks like a shark-person made with the sexy time to some demon scorpion and then covered their love-spawn in Nickelodeon Gak.  This alien is one of the most visually impressive creatures to ever hit the big screen, and that's even before seeing it in action.  When you combine the fantastic production with practical effects --- as good as it looks, most of the special effects are made with puppets and creativity --- this movie becomes something more.  It moves from "cool idea" to "cool movie," and that's still disregarding what actually happens in the film.  With Scott's talent for building suspense, you wind up with something truly special.  And when I reference the suspense in this film, I'm not talking about "Don't go into the basement, dumbass!"  I'm not even talking about "Wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...oh, it's only the cat ---- KNIFE IN THE FACE!"  I'm talking about a pervasive sense of dread that few horror films come close to matching.  Scott slowly reveals more and more about the alien menace, but still keeps the audiences off-guard.  The alien changes its appearance and the way it attacks throughout the film, so you're never quite sure what to expect.

Except death.  You always expect death

One of the things that I like best about Alien, though, is the immorality of The Corporation.  It's one thing to make a monster movie, but adding duplicity and cutthroat capitalism changes the threat from a simple (although dangerous) external one, to a two-front war, where the characters have to watch their backs, too.  Most movies would be happy to have just one of these layers, which is another reason Alien is such an interesting watch.

This is only the second or third time I have sat down to watch Alien, and it impresses me more and more each time.  I love when films transcend their genres, so the way Alien combines awesome sci-fi with horror just blows me away.  When watching movies with my friends, we often skip over this film in favor of the louder and more action-packed Aliens, but Ridley Scott's direction has won me over.  I am finally convinced that this is the best Alien movie.  Everything about it, from the slow reveal of the title in the opening credits to the genuinely shocking chest-burst scene, all the way to the fourth act scares is wonderful.

What a rip-off!  They did the same thing in Spaceballs!

I don't even mind the stupidity of the characters risking their lives for a cat or the fact that the iconic egg image on the movie poster doesn't resemble the actual eggs in the film very much.  This is a complex story with good, old-fashioned special effects and a slow-burning story that effectively amps up the terror in the plot.  And that's all it's about.  There are no distractions --- how many other filmmakers would have horned in a romantic subplot here? --- because this is all about dread and terror, and Alien does what it does so very, very well.

Abduction

With the recent announcement of the 2011 Oscar nominations, I took a few moments to figure out what 2011 movies I need to watch before the big awards show.  I don't necessarily like to just watch the good movies, though; my annual best-of list includes the best and the worst of the year.  Upon reflection, however, I realized that my hatred for Sucker Punch was skewing this year's list.  I needed another suitable contender for my Worst Movie of the Year award.  But what could possibly contend with the Punch?  And then I remembered Abduction.

I wish this was my reaction to Abduction

Abduction begins with Nathan (Taylor Lautner) being one crayzee dude, riding on the hood of his buddy's truck the entire way to a huge house party.  Whoa, man!  That shows attitude and baditude!  This movie has character development coming out its ears!  And it has great dialogue, too.

Example: "He who smelt it dealt it"

The first line (that isn't "Woooo!") is "Let's go, baby, we got bitches waiting!"  I love when an opening scene gives me an accurate idea of how good the rest of the film will be.  At the party, one of Nathan's friends (Denzel Whitaker) momentarily stops binge drinking to sell some fake IDs to other party-goers.  Wait...what?  Yes, despite the apparent ease with which the characters got alcohol, they are all supposed to be teens.  To be fair, at least the actors playing the teens are all either teens or in their early twenties, so this isn't as obnoxious as it can be in films.  That doesn't really have much to do with the rest of the movie, but it stuck out to me.  Anyway, Nathan is assigned a school project with his neighbor, Karen (Lily "My dad's Phil" Collins), which has them looking into child abductions.  This assignment guides them to the wonders of the interweb, where they find a website that takes child photos and runs them through a computer-generated aging process.  On that website, Nathan and Karen find one abduction victim who is projected to look exactly like Taylor Lautner!  Or, possibly the guy from The Hunger Games.  Or some other teenager with dark hair.  OMG, IDK, ROTFL, WTF.  No wonder Nathan doesn't look like the people who raised him (the fairly pasty Maria Bello and Jason Isaacs); he was abductioned kidnapped!  Nathan contacts the website, but is put off by their odd questions ("What is your location?  What are you wearing?"); it turns out that the website is run by terrorists, who were waiting to find Nathan for some reason.  A few hours later, Nathan's "parents" are dead, and he finds himself on the run from international black ops agents, the CIA, and --- cue dramatic music --- his past.

Cue glower

Oh.  My.  Goodness.  This movie is awful.  It's not just that Taylor Lautner is incapable of mimicking human emotion, there is so much more that is wrong with Abduction.  For starters, let's look at the conspiracy that is in place.  The basic premise here is that Nathan is being raised by people who are not his parents invaluable to international terrorists.  So that whole subplot of Nathan being a child who was abducted...?  That gets debunked pretty early in the film, which makes this one of the least accurately titled movies I can recall.  It's like calling Back to the Future "Late For School."  Still, terrorists want to find Nathan to use him as a bargaining chip so they could get...something.  To find Nathan, they created and actively maintained several websites that claimed lil' Nathan was abducted.  The odds of any of these sites getting a bite from their precise target is infinitesimal, but the sites are actively monitored by a trained black ops agent at all times.  Really?  You don't outsource that to some nerd?  You give that job to the same guy who is leading the first attempt to capture the target, once he is located?  Really?  And what are the odds of the website-monitoring location being close enough to Nathan's house for the monitoring guy to grab a partner, dress up like a cop and show up at Nathan's doorstep within maybe three hours?

Thankfully, Abduction has many instances where that logic seems downright plausible, when compared to the rest of the movie.  Let's say that you're the CIA agent (played by Alfred Molina) tasked with tracking down Nathan before the terrorists.  Ignoring the fact that the CIA probably wouldn't legally lead a manhunt on US soil for a non-terrorist American citizen, let's say that you finally catch up with the boy: what do you do?  Take him to a secure location?  Bug out of the area as quickly as possible, because the terrorists are close behind?  Give him a disguise and help him go underground?

If you answered "D: commandeer a mom-and-pop burger joint and sit the highly valuable target by a large glass window," then you are apparently smart enough to apply for a job in the CIA.  Not surprisingly, "D" turns out to be a poor choice.  The odd logic of Abduction doesn't stop there, but getting any more in-depth will just give me a headache.

The acting in Abduction suffers from the presence of its two leads.  This is the first time I have seen Taylor Lautner on screen for more than a few moments and he is just shockingly bad.  I'll give him some credit; it appears that he can memorize most of his dialogue.  But he's just awful!  You know how most actors will show emotion in their parts, and will carry that emotion from dialogue chunk to dialogue chunk or even (if they're mildly competent) from scene to scene?  That ability is light years beyond what this guy can pull off convincingly.  I hope he invests that Twilight money wisely, because he won't be on the cover of Tiger Beat forever.  Lily Collins isn't as bad as Lautner, but she's still a long way off from being good here.  Granted, her character is written as a typical girl-next-door crush, but she's awkward and whiny and...well...okay, maybe she acts like a real none-too-bright teen would in a similarly outlandish situation.  That still doesn't make her pleasant to watch or explain the caterpillars on her face.

Maybe she's trying to reform Oasis?

None of the adult cast really get enough screen time to balance the awfulness that is Taylor Lautner.  Maria Bello was halfway decent.  Jason Isaacs was surprisingly likable, especially when he was living out the fantasy of Abduction viewers --- he got to beat the crap out of his "son."  Alfred Molina was wasted in a stupid supporting role, while Sigourney Weaver got to play an annoying character in a stupid supporting role.  Michael Nyqvist was suitably foreign and evil-looking as the lead terrorist/bad guy black ops agent, but it takes quite a bit more than that to make an entertaining villain. 

The blank stare of evil

Elisabeth Röhm randomly showed up as Nathan's real mother; surprisingly, this was not a speaking part.  Dermot Mulroney had an uncredited part toward the end, and now that I've seen this movie, I think "uncredited" was the way to go.

Abduction was directed by John "I was relevant in 1991" Singleton, although "directed" might be a strong term.  Sure, part of the fault lies with the paper-thin script from first-time full-feature screenwriter Shawn Christensen, but Singleton is simply a hack here.  Do you like goofy editing (best example: the reveal of the CGI-aged Nathan)?  How about poor use of camera tricks?  And one-dimensional acting?

Literally phoning it in

Yeah, John Singleton delivers on all fronts.  What bothered me most about his direction in this movie was that it is so far from playing to his strengths.  Singleton's best films (Boyz n the Hood and Baby Boy, in my opinion) have a fairly nice but uncharismatic lead actor surrounded by colorful characters; they're dramas that focus on (fairly) small-level dramas that he blows up to big-time drama.  Abduction is an action movie that should have been a tense thriller.  I love the idea of not trusting the people who raised you, but that concept (the best part of this plot) is jettisoned almost immediately for a dull, substandard chase movie.  Oh, and John Singleton can't film an entertaining fight scene to save his life.

Does anything go right in Abduction?  Well...it's not so bad that you spend the movie hating everyone involved.  It's utter crap, though, make no mistake.

Here are a few of my favorite moments from Abduction:

• One of the reasons Nathan is convinced that he was abducted is because he recognized the shirt in the maybe-him child photo on the website.  Okay, fine.  To prove his suspicions are correct, Nathan looks for and finds this unremarkable, fifteen-plus years old shirt in a matter of minutes.  So...A) his "parents" held on to his pre-abducted belongings? B) a teenager knows exactly where his toddler clothes are stored and remembers them, down to the stains? C) his family held on to his toddler clothes instead of giving them away or selling them at garage sales, like every other American family?
• When Nathan asks his "mom" if she is his mother, she says "...No."  Well, that was easy.
• Terrorists looking to kidnap Nathan place a bomb in the kitchen oven, and it is working on a timer.  Maybe they should have acted like they were in a hurry then, hmm?
• Abduction is amazing with the ridiculous amounts of perfect timing and manhours used by the CIA.  A phone call to 911 goes directly to the CIA, without an operator putting Nathan on hold.  Within moments of being spotted on a security camera, underlings are on the scene, giving chase.  And yet...two dumb teenagers manage to avoid capture for days.
• The bad guy threatened to kill all of Nathan's Facebook friends.  
• My wife summed up the first half of the movie with "also, so far, Taylor Lautner's a dick."
• The bad guy steals Nathan's gun by reaching just under his crotch in a quick and sneaky manner.
• The movie ends with a Train song.  Because the movie wasn't bad enough on its own.

Ghostbusters

Have you ever really considered what a great logo the Ghostbusters have?  It's simple, but is iconic enough so anyone that sees it can get the gist of it, regardless of language.  Well, the occasional person might think it means "No KKK," but I think that's implied in most signage nowadays anyway.

Ray (Dan Aykroyd), Egon (Harold Ramis), and Peter (Bill Murray) are three parapsychological researchers with a grant at Columbia University.  Their research focuses on extrasensory abilities (like ESP) and the scientific possibilities for spirits to exist on the physical plane.  There are two great things about their work; it does not require hard results (Ray's reason) and is a great way to meet slightly gullible women (Peter's reason).  The three lose their grant and are forced out into the real world for the first time, so they do what any of us would do in a similar situation.  They purchase an abandoned firehouse and a used hearse, and open up a ghost capture service called the Ghostbusters.  Naturally, their actions coincide with an increase in paranormal activity and it's ultimately up to these goofballs to save the world.

Despite that surprisingly brief synopsis, I (like my entire generation) am a big fan of Ghostbusters.  It has a great cast, filled with some of the funniest people of the late 70s and early 80s.  Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd were still very funny people (their funniness seems to have decreased proportionally to their increase in weight over the years), and the script (which they co-wrote) has some of their better contextual jokes.  Ramis and Aykroyd have written some of the best subtle conversational humor in film history, and this script is full of it.  Of course, there is a decent part of the film that was at least partially improvised; are you telling me that you think that someone wrote exactly what came out of Bill Murray's mouth in this movie? I'll take the high road and just call you an idiot.  Even without Murray's fantastic improvisational talents, this is still a great script.  It's a comedy, sure, but it's a sci-fi movie first.  These guys could have gotten away with a plot that made absolutely no sense (Want proof?  Watch Aykroyd in Nothing But Trouble), but they actually based this in science.  Well, as much science as parapsychology has to back it up, anyway.

The plot and script are good, but a decent part of this film takes place with its supporting cast, so they are more important here than in other films.  Luckily, the supporting cast is pretty great.  Rick Moranis was funny as the socially awkward health food nut, Louis, but he was awesome once he was possessed by The Keymaster demon.  Likewise, Sigourney Weaver is a good fit for Murray as his love interest, Dana, and she does a good job hamming it up once she is possessed by a demon named Zuul.  Ernie Hudson primarily acts as a straight man for the group, but he does it without coming off as stupid or inept, which is especially nice in a comedy.  Annie Potts has a pretty minor role, but she is able to provide some laughs and gives the movie a little bit of the New York flavor that we would see more of in the sequel.  Last, but not least, William Atherton is completely successful as the short-sighted jerk who doesn't see the value of the Ghostbusters; like his weasel reporter role in Die Hard, Atherton does a great job playing a complete bastard.

This may look like an ensemble cast, but the film really belongs to Bill Murray.  He uses Aykroyd and Ramis --- two generally funny guys, mind you --- as little more than props in his scenes...and it works!  Murray's comic timing is at its best here, making even his blandest lines just a little funny.  He isn't as wacky as his Caddyshack role, or as outgoing as he was in Stripes, but I think this is probably Murray's most well-rounded early work.  This isn't his best acting role, mind you, but he is able to show charm, wittiness, boldness, cynicism, and a great talent for the understatement at different times in this film.  If there is one actor that benefited the most from director Ivan Reitman's experience filming comedies, it was definitely Murray.

Having stated that, I feel a little weird saying that my main criticism of this film is its reliance on Bill Murray.  That may not make a whole lot of sense, but let me try to explain.  Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis were not new to comedies at this point and both had written and acted in several movies and on television.  Both had worked with Murray before, too.  And yet, their roles seem extremely two-dimensional.  Yes, Aykroyd is occasionally a little funny, but it's mainly in response to something hilarious that Murray said.  Ramis, on the other hand, is dry to the point of flaking.  As a trio, they are fun to watch, but without Murray, these two can only hope to inch the plot forward with some vaguely scientific dialogue.  Of course, there's something to be said for giving a star some room to work.  I'm not trying to say that this was a bad choice, because it definitely works in this movie, but I just mourn the complete over-awesomeness that could have been if Aykroyd and Ramis had spent a little more time on their characters.

 Looking at the movie as a whole, I think this is the best comedy/sci-fi blend ever (although Men in Black is pretty good).  Even with some of the main actors contributing less than others, the acting is still great all around, with some fantastic bit parts and a good plot.