The Name of the Rose (1986)

An intellectually nonconformist monk investigates a series of mysterious deaths in an isolated abbey.

    First of, do NOT eat dinner while watching this movie. It was surprisingly stomach-turning, but excellent. The atmosphere was perfect, lingering on the edge of pure terror. It reinforced the fact that the 1300s was an awful time to live, and was chock-full of commentary and symbolism.

    I disagreed with a friend of mine when he said he thought Sean Connery was the most handsome alive. However, upon seeing this film, I changed my mind. I have no idea where they got so many ugly people, or at least, makeup artists so skilled as to completely transform a man's face. The presence of such physical imperfection creates a sense of fear and mistrust instantly when our heroes William and Adso ride up on their donkeys. William (Connery) has a intelligent, dignified, and rugged handsomeness while his young novice Adso (Christian Slater) is beautifully-featured and innocent. The monks with their warts, humps, impossibly long and rotten teeth, and frightening eyes are such a contrast you know instantly that something is wrong in the abbey. And you would be right to think so. Monks begin dying mysteriously, each with a blackened finger and tongue. 

     The film explores a lot of religious issues of the time, most notably the role of "secular" reading such as Aristotle in the church. One monk goes so far as to forbid his inferiors from laughing, saying, "Christ never laughed." Homosexuality and temptation is initially a big part of the plot, as an albino library assistant eyes Adso shyly across the dinner table, and Adso himself is captivated by a beautiful but animal-like peasant girl. William finds himself battling his fellow monks as they insist the devil is at work, while he believes a mysterious book written in Greek is the reason for all the murders in the abbey. What will win out in the end? Knowledge? Or spirituality? Is logic truly the enemy of faith? 

The Other Guys (2010)

Two mismatched New York City detectives seize an opportunity to step up like the city's top cops whom they idolize -- only things don't quite go as planned.

    I liked this movie. I thought it had a good balance between smart, random humor (how priceless is Mark Wahlberg referencing "Touched by an Angel?") and the usual sex stuff that most people expect from guy comedies. It fell into an odd group of movies - the genre parody. In this case, it was the buddy cop movie, and it was done very well. 

     Wahlberg was not the best actor in this, his strangely soft, high voice reminded me painfully of his terrible role in "The Happening," but that just meant Will Ferrell works twice as hard and we reap the benefit of that. An early sequence involves Will Ferrell shutting Wahlberg down by spewing off a long explanation of why he, a tuna, would destroy Wahlberg, a lion. It reminded me a lot of something Dwight from the T.V. show "The Office" would say. Eva Mendes was also pretty funny, as Ferrell's adoring, "scalding hot" wife. I've only seen her in dramas, and she is AWFUL. She should stick to comedy if at all possible. Michael Keaton has a good role as the police captain, and he was probably one of the highlights for me. Although I was initially shocked by how he's aged, I eventually saw that he actually has aged well. He has a funny gag involving TLC references. 

   What saved this movie from being a bad parody was the writing. It was like a combination of Fox's "American Dad!" cartoon, "The Office," and Hollywood comedy writers. As mentioned in my intro, it had smart jokes, satirical jokes (the best example is when Ferrell and Wahlberg are surprised by an exploding building and collapse in agony) and sex humor to please the guys (Mendes' mother is forced to walk back and forth between Mendes and Ferrell, delivering intimate messages). This was parody done well. A very fun, worth-9-bucks, summer movie. 

House (2008)

    Struggling couple Jack and Stephanie's car breaks down, leaving them stranded at an old inn with another couple. There's something strange about the family that lives there, but strange turns to terrifying as a masked killer known as the Tin Man vows to kill them unless they produce one dead body before dawn. The supernatural begins to emerge as the house itself turns on the two couples. Based on the novel by Christian horror/thriller authors Frank Peretti and Ted Dekker.  

First of all, the book wasn't even that good. It was fast, it was freaky, but it was one series of cliches strung together in a row. That fact is made even more clear in the film.
     It's seriously Texas Chainsaw Massacre meets Silent Hill. There are creepy Southerners, a guy in a mask, a disappearing/reappearing little girl. There are sudden thunderstorms, strange water, turning handles, screaming women, and frightening one-liners like, "I'm home." Hello? That was already done, much better I might add, in The Shining. Also copied: sheets of paper shoot out of a printer all with the same words written on it. Wow.
    The acting is not good. The first three minutes were super awkward and things only got better when all our heroes had to do was scream. That's not that hard to do.
    The one thing about the book that makes this movie slightly better than a lot of others, is that it's based in Christianity, so the concept of sin and redemption are strong throughout, more so in the book, but copied vaguely in the movie. It becomes kind of like Dante's Inferno, where one's punishment is tied to the sin, making it ironic. Also, oddly enough, as the film on, it starts to resonate. After all, we all have a house. We all are tortured by the things we've done wrong, it's an internal prison. And light will destroy darkness. House stands out as one of the few horror movies (though not the most well-done) in which good triumphs over evil.