What an odd movie. I went in thinking there was an interesting concept at work, I was hoping for an interesting movie, but my hopes were kept in check by the cast. Honestly, in my opinion Kevin Costner's filmography is spotty, I have never been a big fan of Demi Moore, and Dane Cook in a thriller? Pretty early in his movie career to be trying his hand at drama, methinks he needs to work on his comedy first.

The bright spot going in had to be William Hurt, who has had a couple of great roles in recent years in A History of Violence and the "Battleground" episode of Nightmares & Dreamscapes. Anyway, I went in with low expectations and I walked out with rather conflicting feelings. On one hand the movie has some serious flaws, but on the other, I found myself being entertained to no end. It was a weird experience.

I am sure all of you have had that experience at one time or another. You go into a movie, you recognize it as being pretty bad, but you find yourself enjoying every moment. Usually, they are the kind of movies that you find on late at night on some random cable station. You watch it and are amazed that you are smiling at it, enjoying every odd minute of it. You marvel at the concept, which may be interesting, watch as scenes whither and die no matter how hard they try. When it ends, you think, "Wow, that was kind of bad, but damn if it wasn't enjoyable." Mr. Brooks is that kind of movie.

The story follows Earl Brooks (Costner), a successful businessman and loving family man. On the surface, Earl seems like a great guy, but this great guy has a dark side that he has successfully hid from his loved ones, and everyone else. You see, Brooks has a voice in his head who loves to kill. The voice, embodied by William Hurt, is named Marshall. He and Earl will go out and kill every once in awhile. However, Earl doesn't want to do it anymore; he even goes to AA meetings to help control himself. Marshall isn't quite ready to give up, and the two head out on one final kill. Things go a bit sideways as Earl is photographed on his latest evening of fun. A man who calls himself Mr. Smith (Dane Cook) approaches Mr. Brooks with an offer. In return for not going to the police, he wants to go with him on his next kill — he wants to get a taste of the blood rush of murdering another human being. An odd request to be sure, but one that seems to work out for our killer of the title.

Now, that sounds like it would be a pretty cool movie on its own, but that is not all that we get. We get the added bonus of a detective (played by Demi Moore) hot on the trail of our killer. Okay, that doesn't sound so bad, but that isn't all. The detective is also going through a nasty divorce and is being pursued herself, by another serial killer. If that isn't enough, Mr. Brooks' daughter, Jane (Danielle Panabaker, who I thought was Amber Tamblyn for the whole movie), is back from college, and she has a secret of her own.

Okay, now I really like the Jekyll and Hyde elements of the story. Costner and Hurt work wonderfully together, Hurt being the bloodthirsty heavy of the relationship, not to mention the brains. Watching them go to work together is a thing of beauty. Hurt goads Costner, Costner tries to resist, repeat. Another good thing about the movie is, believe it or not, Dane Cook. He is not great, and I am still a little surprised at how early he is trying the whole drama thing. Still, his role as the wannabe killer is pretty good, I was convinced by his earnestness.

I like how it plays out — however, that falls under the guilty pleasure type of like. The story goes through so many convenient coincidences and acrobatic moves to make everything work. Everything is made to tie together with a nice little bow, but it felt so manufactured, instead of feeling organic. The other killer is tied into the plot, indirectly, the divorce is tied into the plot. That brings up another point; the world of Mr. Brooks is not unlike the comic book world of a superhero, what with Costner called the Thumbprint Killer and the other guy called Hangman; all we need now is a Super-something to do battle with them.

As for the bad, there are issues with day turning into night, and vice versa, without rhyme or reason, and forget about scene continuity. The very beginning is a little awkward as the opening text indicates that the "hunger has returned to Mr. Brooks." It is inadequate shorthand exposition for the Brooks character. It seems to me that there could be some very interesting exposition for the character and his "head" person, far and beyond what is offered here.

Then there is pretty much every scene with Demi Moore. Each one grinds the story to a halt. I was amazed at how bad she was in this film, it was like she wasn't even trying. Pacing is also an issue, partially due to Moore's scenes, but also due to the Costner/Hurt interactions. Now they worked great together, but the way they play out, as if the other characters are unaware of these conversations, the method that is used is essentially no method at all, therefore the pacing just gets all out of whack. Finally, there is the ending. No, I won't give it away, I just wish it had the courage of its convictions and didn't bail out at the last moment — that would have been great.

As unlikely as it is that I was actually entertained by this, I was, yet I also could not help but think that this could have been so much better. The whole voice/person in the head thing was great. I would have loved a deeper examination of how that came to be, where he came from, what led him to give birth to this monstrosity. There are also threads that hint at bigger things in his family that would have been great psychological horror/thriller fodder. If only they had cut down Demi Moore's role, not eliminate the detective on the prowl, but all of this other killer and divorce stuff, it was unnecessary and forced the screenplay through hoops to make everything fit.

Bottom line. It is a seriously flawed thriller that is not a good movie, but still entertained me to no end. It is a strange feeling, but that is how it is. The critic in me wants to trash it and give it a poor rating, but the movie fan in me wants to give it a good rating. I am reminded of Roger Ebert's review of the awful Basic Instinct 2:

I cannot recommend the movie, but … why the hell can't I? Just because
it's godawful? What kind of reason is that for staying away from a movie?
Godawful and boring, that would be a reason.

So, here is my compromised rating:

Mildly Recommended.

Christopher Beaumont spends much of his time writing about entertainment when he isn’t sitting in a movie theater. He is known around the office as the “Movie Guy” and is always ready to talk about his favorite form of entertainment and offer up recommendations. Interests include science fiction, horror, and metal music. His writings can be found at Draven99’s Musings, as well as Film School Rejects.

A good biography will make you regret never meeting the subject. A great biography will make you fall in love. This documentary about author Hubert Selby Jr. falls into the latter category. Cubby, as he called himself, was a warm man who transcended a great deal of pain to create beautiful and lasting art.

This compelling film is a well-edited mix of interviews with the author and his friends and associates, historical background, and feature film clips. It is narrated by Robert Downey Jr. and features interviews with artists such as poet Amiri Baraka, writer/performers Henry Rollins and Lou Reed, authors Richard Price and Jerry Stahl, actors Jared Leto and Ellen Burstyn, directors Matt Polish, Darren Aronofsky, and Jem Cohen, literary critic Michael Silverblatt, and writer/publisher Gilbert Sorrentino.

The story of Cubby's life is linear and well-told. Period stock photography is used, as well as actual photos of the author and his family. An only child who grew up in Brooklyn, Cubby dropped out of school in the eighth grade and joined the Merchant Marine. There, he developed alcoholism and contracted tuberculosis. He spent the next several years of his life in the TB ward, systematically losing pieces of his lungs and rib cage, and the rest of his life battling lung problems. He began writing because he didn't have training to do anything else. His first novel, Last Exit to Brooklyn, was a critical success and an international bestseller. The proceeds from that book, however, went into his arm: in his early 30s, his alcoholism had flowered into heroin addiction, and he didn't become clean until he turned 40.

Cubby's earlier books reflect the ravages and pain of addiction, but his later ones the hope of recovery. His life and art demonstrate that the difficult experiences of life can be transmuted into beauty. Although many people took offense at his depictions of addiction, the underlying theme of his work is the destruction "wreaked by the American dream" and, in later books and also in his life, that love can help us transcend pain and darkness. In fact, several interviewees, as well as the author himself, spoke of the necessity to say "yes" to life, whatever it is that life offers.

Cubby was also known for his unique style of writing, as evidenced by the slash in this movie's title. He wrote in a colorful vernacular, shocking some readers. He also felt that the author was taking dictation, that "…the responsibility of the artist is to transcend the human ego." Cubby was, and is, more popular in Europe than in his own United States.

The film itself is well-crafted and was an Official Selection in the Deauville Film Festival 2005. It was co-directed by Michael W. Dean, another entry into Dean's body of work that inspires artists to, like Hubert Selby Jr., step outside the commercial mainstream, and create strong and honest art.

By Uncle Creepy (of Dread Central)

The Pang Brothers. I'm thinking Danny and Oxide should change their names to Hit and Miss. Why, you ask? Because that is the perfect description of their work. Best known for their Eye trilogy, the Brothers have been pumping out ghost stories with mixed results for the better part of the last ten years. While The Eye was a great film and even The Eye 2 served its purpose, it was the laughably bad The Eye 10 that nearly made me write the duo off completely.

Here in the States J-Horror has just about run its course. Even Sirand, our resident foreign freak, is fed up with the twitchy chicks with long black hair. What was once a breath of fresh air from the Far East has now become soured by the stench of cliché. So what's a pair of filmmakers looking to cash in on a passing craze to do? Simple! Head to America and make their latest spook-fest specifically for Western audiences. Enter The Messengers. A film that is — you guessed it — hit and miss.

Sixteen-year-old Jess (Kristen Stewart) is a bit of a problem child. After a couple of rough years in Chi-town, her family packs up and heads to North Dakota to become — hold on to your asses — sunflower farmers(!). Well, I guess someone's gotta do it, right?

Upon reaching their new dwelling place, Jess discovers that they are not alone. Living with her parents and her little brother are some pretty nasty spirits and a murder of crows. Of course her folks assume that she's just acting out again so they dismiss her rantings as a cry for attention. Luckily for Jess, her brother can see the ghosties too, but the poor kid can't speak so she can't even get her story corroborated. Hell, at least she knows she's not crazy. Things quickly get out of hand, and before you know it, the entire family is taking on the evil in the home as one unit while screaming their heads off on the road to a twist ending, which, I must admit, I didn't see coming.

All in all, aside from some strange plot choices (read: sunflower farming(!) being the profession of choice) The Messengers does just fine in the story department. More importantly the ghosts do their jobs well enough when it comes to delivering the creeps. There were more than a couple of "that's messed-up" moments that had me grinning with goosebumps.

So where did this little film go wrong aside from the ghosts being damned near completely absent during the movie's finale? The answer is simple. With the influx of Asian horror hitting these shores at a truly fast and furious pace, we've seen all these gags before. The floating spectres, the twitching bodies, the stuttering crawling type movements, the discolored clutching hands reaching out to hold their victims at bay — talk about déjà vu. Still, even with all these familiarities, The Messengers does have a few inspired moments. At least this time no one was farting to keep away the spirits (a less than inspired scene from The Eye 10). Thanks for leaving that gag out, Pangs! Go you!

On the supplemental side of the sunflower farm(!), we have a pretty standard package. All that's here is a cast and crew commentary that, just like the film itself, feels very hit or… I'm not gonna say it a third time. You know what I mean. From there we have a series of seven featurettes entitled Examining The Messengers that doles out the standard making-of stuff we've all come to expect. Again, nothing to write home about.

Maybe it's time to just hang up the old long-haired black wig. We're ready for and need something new. Something that can spark the imagination and make the mind's floorboards creak with the type of dread that we crave in a good ghost story.

Sorry, guys, but this is just a case of the message getting here too damned late.

Special Features

• Cast and crew commentary
• Examining The Messengers seven-part behind-the-scenes featurette(s)

Film

2 1/2 out of 5

Special Features
2 1/2 out of 5

Dread Central is the premier website for breaking news, original content and active community in the world of horror, covering movies, DVDs, games, collectibles, live events and music. If it’s got something to do with the dark and horrific, you’ll find it on Dread Central.