In the undeniably entertaining “Shark Night,” director David R. Ellis brings to life a couple of one-dimensional, stereotyped, Southern, racist rednecks to… lecture… us… about… bigotry… Talk about a disconnect. Naturally, there’s a young black man and Hispanic woman who are racially taunted by these two inbred-looking good ole’ boys, but when the film itself engaged in this kind of racial stereotyping (and more), I began to wonder if “Shark Night” was working on the kind of  high level, self-aware social satire only a dog could hear.

For instance, the black guy and the Hispanic woman are naturally a couple — can’t have them romantically mixing with Caucasians, I guess. ***SPOILERS*** Also, both are the very first victims of the shark. But it’s when the shirtless Black guy fights the shark with — ready for this? — a spear, that I began to see the real genius in this film’s penetrating racial commentary.

Or not.

Anyway, “Shark Night” is pure B-movie dumb in the finest way possible. Though no legitimate masterpiece like last year’s epic “Piranha,” you will be entertained throughout. Mixed in with the dumb is a little suspense, gratuitous nudity, gore, action and more dumb. “Shark Night” proudly is what it is and, by design or accident, more insightful when it comes to racial issues (that expose the Hollywood left) than the Academy Award-winner “Crash.”

It’s also a much better movie than “Crash.” Not that that’s a high bar.  

But the real brilliance in the storytelling comes from a shark-attack story where the gaggle of lovely, barely-clothed victims-in-waiting reside on an island. Oh the contrivances you’ll witness to get them into the water, especially after they know what’s in the water. 

Good stuff and a great time if…

You bring a sense of humor and an irony detector.

—–

SHARK NIGHT is available at Amazon.com. DVD Features:

• ·         Shark Attack!  Kill Machine! – Use this feature to jump to your favorite kills quickly
• ·         Ellis’ Island – A cast appreciation of what Shark Night director David Ellis brought to the film 

SHARK NIGHT Blu-ray Disc Features:

All of the DVD features, plus…

• ·         Shark Night’s Survival Guide – Everything you need to know about the sharks in the movie to avoid becoming human chum!
• ·         Fake Sharks Real Scares – This behind the scenes featurette focuses on the use of both animatronic and CGI sharks in Shark Night
• ·         Digital Copy

King raised $242,370. Not too shabby. Clearly, this is a commendable and gracious effort on the part of King. It says a lot about his character. But when you bring it into context with past King quotes and his overall liberalism, it brings up an interesting hypocrisy in what famous liberals and 1 percent types do and say.

In the past, King has stated that he thinks people who make as much as he does should be taxed as much as 50 percent. Why? Has King fully thought about a world where 50 percent of his money is taken by Big Government and then they decide where it goes? Just because it goes to the government with the “best intentions” does not mean it will help heat fellow Mainers’ homes. Yet liberal entertainers like King continue to beg Obama to tax them more when they are fully capable as individuals who have found financial success to use their disposable income anyway they see fit, including helping those they see as needy.

How Stephen King has not connected his actions with his beliefs is really quite amazing.

Has he imagined a world where the government taxed him less? Imagine how much more good he could do with that disposable income!? Or not. It’s really his choice. When giving becomes forced giving, then the whole act has lost merit. Why is it liberals cannot imagine a world where people with money make the right decisions? Why is it they oppose choice so often, yet turn around and exemplify choice with their own income?

King not only raised almost a quarter of a million dollars in the name of charity, but he also owns the very radio station through which the contest was held. Think about that. King, as a 1 percenter, is able to provide jobs not just through his writing but through his radio station. In the dystopian future where liberals want to take us, there is no such thing as men earning a living, becoming successful, starting businesses, providing jobs and giving back to those in need. In their world, there is a defined upper class that pays for the lower classes as they deem appropriate. The whole capitalist system becomes handicapped and people become trapped. King, himself a liberal, gives into this philosophy of taking in order to give when he is a perfect example, in some respects, of opposition to that liberal philosophy. He became successful at what he loves, then started a business that provides jobs and regularly gives back to those in need.

King is the most successful author in the world, and he shows no signs of slowing down. His new novel, “11/22/63,” has become a New York Times Bestseller, and he has a new miniseries, “Stephen King’s Bag of Bones,” on A&E. But this article is not meant to criticize the man’s art. His art is almost beyond criticism because of its wild success and popularity. This article is simply meant to point out the common sense of situations that so many liberals seem to miss. They applaud men like King when they talk about needing to be taxed more and then they applaud him again when he creates jobs and helps others with his disposable income. Yet they cannot put together the obvious points.

Men like King exemplify the best of capitalism. He found what makes him happy and then became financially successful doing it. Would he be able to do such philanthropic things if he made half what he makes now? How much more could be do with all the money he earns? With his money he provided a better life for himself, his family and others by creating jobs and donating. He did this all in a system of choice and American capitalism.

Why is this so hard for King and other liberals to see?

—–

The new drama had a strong premiere about two weeks ago, scoring about five million viewers. ‘Horror Story’ is equal to the demo rating for ‘Nip/Tuck’ and scored 33 percent higher than ‘Sons of Anarchy,’ one of FX’s most watched shows ever.

‘Horror Story’ is about a Bostonian family who decides to move across country to L.A. into a 1920s Victorian home that (surprise surprise) is haunted. The house has definitely been a prime spot for some murders, but that doesn’t stop the Harmon family from calling it home.

On top of the house being a death zone, the Harmons have several problems of their own. Ben (Dylan McDermott) is a psychiatrist who is caught cheating with one of his students by his wife Vivien (Connie Britton), obviously causing some severe trust issues in their relationship. In addition, Vivien is working through the traumatic experience of having delivered a stillborn child months earlier. Their teenage daughter Violet (Taissa Farmiga, Vera’s younger sister) is far more troubled than the average high schooler and is starved for attention from both parents who can’t give her any at the moment.

Their domineering and creepy neighbors Constance (a colorful Jessica Lange) and her daughter Adelaide (Jamie Brewer) constantly enter the house without permission, disturbing the Harmons, especially when Adelaide says to Vivien, “You’re going to die in here.”

Long-time housekeeper Moira shows up and explains to Vivien that she can take care of the house better than anyone since she knows the grounds best. The mysterious part is Vivien sees Moira as an old woman, while Ben sees her as a seductive young redhead. Is Ben imagining temptation or is Moira a ghost?

The most disturbing line comes at the end of the pilot, when Constance says to Moira, ‘Don’t make me kill you again,’ hinting at signs of a ghostly relationship.

Meet the modern Addams Family.

The show presents two more rather complicated characters. One is Tate (Evan Peters), a troubled teen being treated by Ben, who seems to have a strong likeness for daughter Violet. Tate has outbursts and seems to transform into something freaky when the lights go out. Is Tate human or monster? The other is Larry (‘True Blood’’s Denis O’Hare), a former occupant of the house who tries to warn Ben of his family’s fate if he chooses to stay there. Larry has only interacted with Ben; is he a ghost himself or part of Ben’s imagination?

There are certainly many questions to be answered in this twisted tale, and with the minds of Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuck (creators of ‘Nip/Tuck’ and ‘Glee’) behind the story, I’m sure we’re in for a frightening treat. Of course, since ‘Horror Story’ couldn’t be more different than ‘Glee,’ it makes us wonder what else is going on in those crafty brains of theirs. What other tricks and stories will this duo have for us in the future?

‘Horror Story’ is one to fall in the category of adult television. This is not a show you sit down with the family to watch or discuss at dinner, considering gruesome ghosts, bloody murders, adultery and bondage were just some of the themes presented in the first episode.

‘American Horror Story’ is a show for scary movie fanatics, while the more conservative viewer may just change the channel within the first few minutes of an episode. But with Halloween quickly approaching, I encourage everyone to give the mind twisting and risqué drama a shot.

‘American Horror Story’ airs on Wednesdays at 10 p.m. EST on FX.

Last year’s debut of ‘The Walking Dead’ proved the small screen was just the right size for an undead miniseries. Season two, which begins with a 90-minute episode at 9 p.m. EST tonight, confirms those initial six episodes were no aberration. This is seriously good horror, the kind that doesn’t require gallons of fake blood to grab our attention.

Not that ‘Dead’ skimps on the gore, mind you. It’s got cinema-level effects to go along with the addictive story lines. The behind-the-scenes squabbling during the production of season two – ‘Dead’ showrunner Frank Darabont left the series abruptly – hasn’t dampened the creativity behind this undead jamboree.

‘Season 2′ opens with the band of survivors led by deputy Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) leaving Atlanta after the Centers for Disease Control headquarters exploded at the end of the last episode. Now, they’re heading for Fort Benning where they hope they’ll find something more than an army of zombies hungry for human flesh.

The band’s RV breaks down before they can get too far, forcing them to stop in the middle of an abandoned – and vulnerable – roadway. When one of the group gets separated from the pack, the rest are forced to consider how much they can risk to bring their friend back safe and sound.

The episode’s signature set piece finds the humans scrambling for cover as a swarm of walkers march around the RV. It’s a bravura moment, typical of a series which seems to find new ways to amplify the zombie threat.

Next week’s installment strikes an even darker note, as the characters rush to save a friend seriously injured in a freak accident. We meet new survivors while the show’s core players emote as if Emmy voters were judging every last tear drop.

Any series focusing on a world overrun by zombies will be grim by default, but the new season forces the characters to exhibit so many shades of despair it’s unsure how much more can be plumbed in the remaining 11 installments.

That’s a small quibble given the overall excellence on display.

The first six episodes of ‘The Walking Dead’ didn’t get its fingernails dirty with social commentary like some of director George A. Romero’s best zombie films, and ‘Dead’s’ second season appears equally blase about partisan sniping. Rummage around the crush of subplots and you’ll find subtle commentaries on faith, loyalty and the essential nature of mankind. ‘Dead’ prioritizes the dramatic elements in play, relegating debates on hidden agendas to Internet forums where minutiae rules the day.

Conservatives might find plenty to embrace about Lincoln’s Rick Grimes, a masculine hero who doesn’t let his emotions prevent him from frequent bouts of heroism.

Televised horror has an even spottier track record than the big screen. The dawn of AMC’s ‘Dead’ reminds us  TV’s current creative renaissance extends to this beleaguered genre.

Zombies have been shuffling across movie screens for decades in films like ‘I Walked with a Zombie’ and ‘The Last Man on Earth.’ But director George A. Romero gave the genre new, er, life with his 1968 classic ‘Night of the Living Dead.’

Romero is still making zombie movies, but they lack the bite of his best shockers like ‘Dawn of the Dead.’ His ‘Diary of the Dead’ was a well intentioned but clumsy attempt to fuse the genre with ‘Blair Witch’ style found footage. And ‘Survival of the Dead,’ with its laughable Hatfield-McCoy feud, should have been put out of its misery before reaching movie theaters.

A great zombie story demands more than masticated human flesh. And that’s where AMC’s ‘The Walking Dead’ comes in.

The surprise hit’s second season begins at 9 p.m. EST Oct. 16. Based on the popular graphic novel, ‘Dead’ boasts some serious cinematic pedigree – including producers Frank Darabont (‘The Shawshank Redemption’) and Gale Anne Hurd (‘The Terminator’). But it’s the all too human cast that made people tune in week after week, led by the strong-willed Rick Grimes (British actor Andrew Lincoln).

The show doesn’t just revel in the genre’s gore factor, although a few sequences from last season made ‘Dead’ an ideal choice for struggling dieters. It makes us root for the survivors of the zombie outbreak, something that happens all too infrequently in zombie films where it’s all about the gruesome head shots.

Can ‘Dead’s new season equal last year’s six-episode arc? Darabont is no longer the ‘Dead’ showrunner after being unceremoniously canned during the production of season 2, and this season promises seven additional episodes which could put a strain on the show’s writing team.

We can only hope Romero will be watching as season two unfolds and taking notes on how to pump fresh blood into his own zombie films.

—–

I just watched this prequel trailer on my computer in broad daylight in my sunlit office with the windows open, the birds singing and the comforting sound of a lawnmower mowing somewhere off in the distance … and it still scared the hell out of me.

Can’t wait for October 21 … or for it to hit Redbox.

The two previous entries in this franchise were both outstanding at delivering the chills and his one looks to be just as good — maybe better. To see a simple concept executed so perfectly is a rare treat, especially in the horror genre. Furthermore, the production design looks terrific. The story is set in 1988 and filmdom has a habit of overdoing the 80’s in a way that screams THIS IS THE 80’s! — which of course takes you out of the story. Unless we’re talking “The Wedding Singer,” which ruled in every imaginable way.

No blood.  No monsters.  Just our own imagination tweaked by the single cam format, a sub-genre leveraged years later by Quarantine, Cloverfield, and Paranormal Activity.

Those films wouldn‘t exist unless Blair Witch proved the format could draw audiences in.

Made on the uber-cheap by a pair of unknown filmmakers, Blair Witch was nothing less than a sensation when it hit theaters 11 years ago. It was the ultimate word of mouth hit without recognizable stars, just a savvy Internet campaign that hinted that what you were about to see actually happened. Everything coalesced into a bracingly original experience, something impossible to recapture today.

That makes the just-released Blu-ray release a chance to appreciate a groundbreaking film, but not a moment to jump out of our seats all over again. The scares simply aren’t the same as they once were. That leaves a curious film, one that still commands our attention but cannot help but disappoint when compared to timeless shockers like The Omen and The Exorcist.

What emerges is a precursor to our reality television age, when everyone is armed with a video camera and few thoughts remain private.

The story remains a model of simplicity. Three young filmmakers head into the woods of rural Maryland to explore the myth of the Blair Witch. Locals say the creature has haunted the area for decades, a hairy half-man, half-beast who slaughters children and adults alike.

The filmmakers quickly get lost despite the map wrangling of their unofficial leader, Heather (Heather Donahue). They’re forced to camp out several nights straight, and each time they go to bed they hear odd noises and wake to find their camp site changed in small but peculiar ways.

Is someone pulling a prank on them, or is the Blair Witch prepping for the kill?

Much of the film’s dialogue feels unforced and raw, which helps the illusion that these three no-name actors might really be the real deal – filmmakers who died pursuing their art. That’s hooey, of course, but it was part of what made the film special during its theatrical run.

The script doesn’t give us much insight into the characters, a flaw that grew worse over time. They bicker about directions and how Heather refuses to put her camera down, but the arguments rarely reflect on the characters. It pushes the story forward, but when their lives are imperiled, it doesn’t make it easier to root for a possible rescue.

Only Mike (Michael C. Williams) is given a semblance of a character arc, growing from a passive soul to someone who takes measures to keep the trio sane.

The cam format allows for some confessional moments, and it’s hard not to think about those reality show rants when Heather turns the camera on herself to apologize for getting her friends in such a mess.

The extras include four alternate endings, each offering little in the way of new shocks, plus the antiquated short about the “true story“ behind the “Witch.” What’s missing is an extensive “making of” feature, or even one showing the film’s legacy from the perspective of film historians.

The Blair Witch Project can’t scare us silly any longer, but the film still matters to horror fans all the same.

The story opens on a quiet lake as Matt (played by a surprise cameo), is fishing. A quake from beneath the lake suddenly shakes his small boat (he really needs a bigger boat but that’s another story.) Soon enough, Matt’s boat is swirling around as he tries to stay above water, not knowing what has been unleashed below him.

What has been unleashed are huge numbers of piranha who have been cannibalizing themselves for millions of years and are now pretty excited to have escaped from their underground prison. Unfortunately for the townspeople and the spring break visitors, the hungry flesh-eaters are set free during the high-traffic tourist time for a busy local sheriff (Elizabeth Shue). It is also a busy time for Derrick Jones (Jerry O’ Connell), a filmmaker working on a “Girls Gone Wild”-type video featuring college teens on spring break.

Along with the sheriff and Jones, the movie focuses on Jake Forrester, the sheriff’s teenage son played by Steven R. McQueen, grandson of famed actor Steve McQueen. Early in the film, Jake is hired by Jones to scout out locations for his adult-only movie. He’s supposed to babysit his two younger siblings that day but skips out.

As noted above, the plot is full of clichés and stereotypical characters, including Jake and his danger-prone younger siblings. However, these characters are enjoyable and we want them to survive. There are also dislikable characters audiences will likely want to see served up as “piranha platters.” It should also be noted that this film has a strong cast, including Academy Award-nominee Elizabeth Shue and the great Christopher Lloyd. The best actor in the film, though, is Jerry O’ Connell, who brings the term sleaze bag to a new level.  

The movie does not take itself seriously. I’m sure the writers knew how many clichés they were using when writing and they borrowed heavily from other monster-in-the-water movies. There is a lot of nudity and gruesome attack sequences.

My biggest problem is that some events are blatantly over the top. I expected more corniness and less carnage. I enjoy the over-the-top quality, but at times it just seemed like too much. I especially felt that during a bloody and very gruesome beach-attack sequence.  Additionally, the big climactic scene of the sheriff’s son trying to save the girl he likes is both over-the-top and unbelievable.

Despite its faults, however, “Piranha 3D” is a movie worth biting into.

—–

Absolutely LOVED this. So did Kurt Loder. The first masterpiece on 2010. No, I’m not kidding. Aiming to post my review tomorrow. — JN

—– 

Before actually viewing it, the conceit of the film’s concept — having the events all caught on a home video camera — turned me off. But in this case, my prejudice towards gimmicks and Internet hype failed. If seeing this skillfully crafted low-budgeter at home made me wish I hadn’t given up my stuffed bunny Rudy when I was 15, seeing it in a theatre must’ve been twice the experience.

Horror is my favorite genre. The problem is that effectively and honestly terrifying your audience is in my opinion the most difficult thing for a film to do. Which is why truly worthy horror films come around so rarely. When they do work, however, there is no better movie-viewing experience. And the original “Paranormal” not only works but proves that even with no budget a skilled filmmaker — in this case writer/director Oren Peli — can freeze you cold with nothing more than the movement of a bedroom door.

Peli’s film is also intelligently scripted. The story moves towards an unexpected but still logical conclusion and the relationship between the two twenty-something protagonists is just complicated and tense enough to make you believe they wouldn’t run screaming out of the house. Problem numero uno with haunted house stories is making sense of why no one ever leaves, or at least crafting the film well enough that the audience doesn’t roll their collective eyes as if to say,”It’s called the Holiday Inn, morons.”

Peli wrote but doesn’t direct the sequel. Thankfully, from the look of the trailer, it looks as though #2 will at least hang on to the concepts and ideas that made its predecessor so worthy of a follow up. My guess is that everyone learned not to mess with a winning formula after the botched sequel to 1999’s equally terrific “Blair Witch Project” — another hair raising, out-of-nowhere, low-budget chiller with a similar concept – failed so miserably.

Some of you might remember that “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2” had about as much in common with #1 as the L.A. Times does with journalism.