Tom Schulz

I might have to do some checking up on this, but I'm pretty sure that seven writers is a record high for a non-anthology film. And just what is this cinematic treat scripted with so many pens? It's probably really good, right? I mean, with seven writers, it would have to be extremely good…or very, very bad. Unfortunately, it is the latter, and the movie is `Scary Movie 2.' This sequel of the funny teen-horror spoof `Scary Movie' has none of the subtleties, parodies, or even big laughs the original film did. Instead, it digresses to overtly sexual and gross-out humor which doesn't even work on a gut level. I feel sorry for every person associated with this project.

The story line is actually a little more involved for `Scary Movie 2,' as if you needed a plot to set up the horrendous `laugh scenes,' which are fewer and far between this time. Classic camp actor Tim Curry is Professor Oldman, a college teacher who recruits a group of students to spend the night in a haunted house so he can conduct some sort of experiment (though we never really understand what that experiment is all about). Of course, this group contains most of the kids from the first `Scary Movie,' including innocent Cindy (Anna Faris), loud-mouthed Brenda (Regina Hall), marijuana-obsessed Shorty (Marlon Wayans), and sexually questionable Ray (Shawn Wayans). New this time is straight-arrow Clark (Christopher Masterson). The house is inhabited by the twisted butler Hanson (Chris Elliot) and even a ghost (`Night Court's' Richard Moll). The kids slowly discover the mysteries and secrets of the house, and make every bodily function, sexually oriented, inappropriate joke along the way.

There are those who complain about this style of humor in general, and therefor will not see this movie. However, sometimes it works, such as in the original `Scary Movie,' `American Pie,' and even at the far end of the scale, `There's Something About Mary.' There, the gross out is permissible because there are characters we mildly care about, or there are other types of humor going on as well.

However, `Scary Movie 2' is the prime example of where gross out humor can go wrong. Instead of playing up some of the humorous character stereotypes, or mixing in some creative horror movie parodies with the gross-out humor, `Scary Movie 2' relies solely on it. It seems to me that many scenes in the film were robbed of their comic potential so our seven scriptwriters could fit more vomit, feces, and other unmentionable bodily concoctions into the film.

There are a few laughs that harked back to `Scary Movie,' and those scenes always feature one of the two Wayans brother's characters. Even though they had five other folks working with them, its clear that this is their project. Maybe those other five scriptwriters fought back and added in the gross-out stuff.

As for performances, the same can be said. Both Wayans seem to have more comedic experience than their fellow teen-age counterparts. Faris is better than she was in the first `Scary Movie,' but nowhere near as funny. Plus, she still looks and sounds just a little too odd for me. Curry hasn't had a good role since the mid 80's, and its sad that this is the caliber of film he works in. There are other famous cameos including James Woods as a priest and former Conan O'Brien sidekick Andy Richter as his assistant, but one must wonder what they are doing slumming around in this film. After watching Woods in his worst performance to date, it frightened me to realize that Marlon Brando was originally cast in the role. There would be no saving his career had he gone through with this.

If you have any desire to be thoroughly disgusted, or like your humor from the bottom of the barrel (and I mean bottom!) then check out `Scary Movie 2.' Otherwise, go on living your life with the knowledge than unlike myself, you managed to escape this waste of a sequel.

The film "Hannibal" has the same unfortunate problem as actor Jim Belushi: a more famous older brother. Just as Jim Belushi and his brother John have a lot in common, so do "Hannibal" and "Silence of the Lambs." And just like John Belushi was the better of the brothers, "Silence of the Lambs" still stands as the better film. Still, "Hannibal" has quite a lot to offer.

The best joy of this film was its intriguing, original plot. While most sequels have to stretch to continue their stories, the events in "Hannibal" seem the logical output of "Lambs." This can be attributed to Thomas Harris' well written-book, and the contributions of dramatic bigwig David Mamet. I believe this a rare occasion where not reading the book is beneficial to the movie-viewing experience, as I hear there are some discrepancies between the two (I have not read the book, though I'm planning on it). Regardless, the excitement comes from the suspense, not knowing what is coming next.

And in this story, it's hard to tell what will happen next. One of the first characters we meet is Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), a horribly disfigured, and horribly rich, former victim of Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter (Sir Anthony Hopkins). Verger is bent on seeking revenge on the escaped Lecter. To do this, he uses former Hannibal guard Barney (Frankie Faison), and our heroine, FBI Agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore). Starling has just been involved in a FBI fiasco, and exploiting this, Verger lures Starling back into the Hannibal hunt. Of course, she faces opposition from within her department, in the form of Justice Department member Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta). However, once she tracks Lecter to Florence, Italy, she faces competition from foreign law official Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini). All the meanwhile, the sophisticated and (ahem) tasteful Lecter is up to his old tricks, sparked to re-enter crime as his arch nemesis rejoins the battle.

So with all these old friends back together, who's missing? The most obvious is Jodie Foster in her Academy Award winning role as Starling. Much was made of her refusal of the sequel, and of her replacement, Julianne Moore. And how does Moore stack up? She is an acceptable replacement. She doesn't emulate the same frailty/strength issues as Foster did, nor the innocence or beauty. However, she has the same spunk and attitude, and actually makes Starling a little tougher, which would make sense after ten years of service in the FBI. Moore is never particularly jarring as Starling, but it would have been nice to have Foster back.

Also gone is director Jonathan Demme, and in his place is the almost legendary Ridley Scott. The director of such classics as "Alien," "Blade Runner," and "Thelma and Louise," has been recently nominated for an Academy Award for a little film he did called "Gladiator." So what's he doing here? Actually, adding quite a bit of detail. While "Silence of the Lambs" excelled in character development, it was less strong in stylization and visuals. Scott has filled "Hannibal" with beautiful scenery, detailed action sequences, bizarre camera angles, and other minute pieces of detail which have come to be Scott's trademark.

But guess who came back to play? Sir Hopkins is at his full form, playing quite possibly his favorite character. Lecter is less psychotic this time, more refined, but every bit as frightening. And after all this time, Hopkins still makes us hate and cheer for Lecter all at once. As for the rest of the cast, you get what you would expect: Oldman is effectively creepy, Giannini is shady and backstabbing, and Liotta is pretty straightforward. Though, towards the end, I noticed Liotta put a lot of thought into his performance.

"Hannibal" won't be the award-winning blockbuster its older brother was, but it is a very good sequel, and that's saying something in Hollywood today. With the parties involved giving it their all, it's a film that is only about a medium, where its predecessor was well-done.

I recently had the pleasure of teaching the wonders of film criticism to an English composition class at Marietta College in Marietta, Ohio. The experience was enjoyable, and the class posed a number of questions. One of the more interesting questions concerned the films I had seen that I believed had potential, but ultimately failed in execution. While I have seen a number of films that fit into this category, I couldn't think of a decent example. This was because I hadn't seen "The 6th Day" yet. What could have been an interesting and exciting look at the evils of cloning was a "B" grade action film at best, despite an above-par script and one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's better roles to date.

The film's premise is heavily based in TRUE science fiction; that is, fiction having its basis in scientific truth, using projections of the future to fully examine some aspect of our society. Sorry to go into such an elaborate definition, but I believe a lot of stuff gets swept into the category of science fiction simply because it has a robot, or takes place in outer space. But I digress.

This fictional reality here deals with cloning. In the film, which takes place in the "near future," cloning is an every-day practice, but only with pets and animals. Cloning people has been outlawed, as the original human cloning project went horribly wrong. Schwarzenegger plays Adam Gibson, a decent family man and helicopter pilot chartered to fly Michael Drucker (Tony Goldwyn), a rich businessman who owns Replacement Technologies. This corporation is at the height of cloning technology, running everything from a fish cloning company to help repopulate the oceans, to "RePet," a company that clones dead family pets. There's even a rumor that the company's head doctor (Robert Duvall) is experimenting with illegal human cloning. Something goes terribly wrong on Drucker's first flight, and before he knows, Gibson discovers he has been cloned. Its up to him to discover the secret controversy, and get his life back.

With this premise, the film is wide open to make many social observations, and does so very well, on occasion. Much of the legalities concerning cloning, as well as the ethical concerns, are discussed and examined by the characters. Even though the technology exists in the future, it is not widely accepted. Some of these observations are stated with all the eloquence you could expect from an Arnold/action film, but others are done so subtly, and surprisingly, with biting humor. Much of the concept of "RePet" is quite amusing.

However, if science fiction is the film's basis, lame action sequences are its filler. In between these intriguing dialogues are shoddy, cookie-cutter action scenes one should expect from a made for TV film. No matter if it's a car chase, a laser gun shoot-out, or a helicopter battle, it all feels very dull. It's not that I'm knocking these things, because they have to appear in action film; I just wish they were done well. Ultimately, the action suffers from a lack of creativity, which ironically, is where the rest of the script excels.

And one can't blame Arnold for not trying, as he is both charming and believable in his part. His is a performance with a surprising level of humanity, especially in scenes where he's going about his daily life. One almost forgets he's an action star and begins to take him a little seriously. But don't worry, after the first half-hour he's picked up a laser gun and is fighting and one-lining his way to the climax.

I guess my one qualm with "The 6th Day" is its failed potential: with some better action sequences (like those found in "The Matrix"), this could have been a very decent film, one I would be sending you to right away. Instead, it's simply a wait-for-video flick, and by my guess, that wait won't be long.