howard the duck Tagged Articles at Cinematical

No, we're not talking about folks whose immigration status is in question, but actual visitors from another planet. This weekend marks the release of District 9, in which an alien race is forced to live as second class citizens in slum-like conditions on Earth. To commemorate the occasion I'm taking a look back at seven of my favorite cinematic aliens.

Alien Nation
This 1988 flick seems like the perfect one to start with since the plot reminds me so much of District 9. The film is set in the far flung future world of 1991, just a few years after a space ship filled with escaped alien slaves landed in California. Known for their large spotted craniums and their tendency to dissolve in salt water, the aliens are referred to as newcomers and their assimilation into the Los Angeles population has been difficult. Since the newcomers are not particularly welcome they have become America's newest oppressed minority.

James Caan plays police detective Matthew Sykes, whose partner is killed in the line of duty. Sykes' is assigned to work with Detective Sam Francisco (played by Mandy Patinkin), the first newcomer officer to be promoted to detective. This is basically a buddy cop film with science fiction trappings, so the somewhat racist Sykes eventually warms up to his extraterrestrial partner and they join forces to prevent a highly addictive drug from being sold to the newcomer population. The film inspired a 1989 television series on Fox that lasted only one season but in turn gave rise to five made-for-TV movies. According to our sister site TV Squad, the show is about to be reimagined for the SyFy channel.

Have you ever dismissed a movie as an unmitigated piece of junk, and then seen it a second time and thought, "That wasn't so bad"? Xan Brooks in The Guardian raises the question: "Who's at fault if a film fails on a first viewing and succeeds on the second? The viewer, the film-maker, or the tangled, criss-crossing dialogue between the two?"

He notes the turn-around he experienced with the Chilean drama Tony Manero, which is due for US release shortly. and admits that he is "nagged by the suspicion that there may be many other films in need of hasty reappraisal." The influential film critic Pauline Kael famously said she never watched a movie more than once, but Newsweek film critic Joe Morgenstern completed changed his mind about Bonnie and Clyde after describing it as a "squalid shoot-em-up for the moron trade." His mea culpa read in part: "I am sorry to say I consider that review grossly unfair and regrettably inaccurate."

I'm not suggesting that every bad movie will suddenly blossom into a classic with a second viewing. Our own Scott Weinberg recently watched Howard the Duck again, and that sucker is still a "$40 million dollar poop-nugget." On the other hand, my estimation of the original Friday the 13th rose with a recent reviewing, and Peter Bogdanovich's films have been rising in stock for me lately after falling through the floor for a period of my critical life.

What about you? Have repeat viewings changed your mind, perhaps after a period of years, either for good or for bad? Are you now convinced that Citizen Kane isn't so bad after all, or ready to give Watchmen a second chance when it hits DVD?

In the pantheon of mega-derided '80s films, few films can touch the inescapable reek of Howard the Duck. I know plenty of folks who dig Ishtar, Cobra, and Leonard Part 6 -- but remarkably few movie geeks have stood up and spoken out for Willard Huyck's Howard the Duck, which just recently arrived as a Special Edition DVD from Universal.

I'll spare you the plot machinations -- because frankly a movie this stupid deserves to be seen BY YOU at least once -- but I've always been amazed at the disparity between the source material and the cinematic adaptation. I've also been sickened by the girl on duck seduction scene, assaulted by the horrific Thomas Dolby music, and beaten into drooling submission by the flick's endlessly wretched puns.

But as a piece of mid-'80s big-budget mega-floppage? I find Howard the Duck more fascinating -- and more worthy of mockery -- than Hudson Hawk, Over the Top, and Toys put together. So imagine my ironic jubilation when I saw a new Howard the Duck DVD sitting on the video shelves, as if it were actually a real-live movie that people would want to own...

Milk
Sean Penn won an Academy Award for his portrayal of openly gay San Francisco politician Harvey Milk, and Dustin Lance Black won another for his script, which focused on Milk's activist years in the 1970s. "It's a minor miracle of sheer film making joy and determination," wrote James Rocchi, "and one of the best American films of 2008." With deleted scenes and mini-features "Remembering Harvey," "Hollywood Comes to San Francisco," and "Marching for Equality." Also on Blu-ray. Buy it.

Add to Netflix queue. | Buy at Amazon.

Let the Right One In
My top pick from last year is a dramatic thriller about vampires and young people, old souls and eternal fears, yearning for the unobtainable and the inevitable pains of loving another person. Director Tomas Alfredson takes a traditional tale -- the youngster who is picked on and the new friend who helps -- and rubs in a touch of supernatural, a touch of the old world, and a touch of heart on the sleeve, wrapping it in beauty and agony. Also on Blu-ray. Buy it.

Add to Netflix queue. | Buy at Amazon.

Transporter 3
I have no easy defense of my love for Jason Statham as Frank Martin in the Transporter films. Suffice it to say that the action -- fights, car stunts, people stunts -- keeps me occupied, the plots are not hard to track, and I like the interplay between the main character and Inspector Tarconi (François Berléand). In this episode, Jeroen Krabbé as the bad guy is a nice bonus. Also on Blu-ray. Rent it.

Add to Netflix queue. | Buy at Amazon.

Also out: Cadillac Records, Role Models. After the jump: a bounty of Indies on DVD, more Blu-ray Picks, plus Collector's Corner.

Sean Connery did it, Joaquin Phoenix apparently did it, and countless other actors, actresses and filmmakers have talked about it at one point or another -- leaving us, along with the pages of People Magazine, to wonder when, how or what if. It's funny, too, because you don't find many people who want to retire from the entertainment business, simply because most either never make it, fall out of the spotlight or wind up overdosing on drugs, their own ego or something along those lines wayyy before they'd ever reach an age to retire at. But here's a good question: Could the fans at home ever force someone into retirement?

Our good friend Jenna Busch wrote a little thing for Sci Fi Wire on nine reasons why George Lucas should retire ... like, now. Say what you want about Lucas and his career choices, but the man definitely still has his fans -- as poor Jenna is feeling the fanboy wrath in the comments section of her post. Her reasons, of course, mention Lucas' "additions" to the original Star Wars films, the fact that he refuses to release any of his flicks in hi-def, his work on both Willow and Howard the Duck (two awesome guilty pleasures, in my opinion), etc ...

While I've thrown more than a few internet punches at Lucas over the years, I have to say I'm really enjoying the Clone Wars animated show on Cartoon Network (seriously, watch it), I didn't loathe Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as much as the rest of you did, and I feel Lucas still has a few good chunks of awesomeness left in him. That said, you all (including the lovely Jenna) may feel differently. So have at it below: Should Lucas retire?

I grew up reading Charlotte's Web and watching Mister Ed and the Francis (the Talking Mule, with Donald O'Connor) movies on TV, so I have a very warm spot in my heart for talking animals. They can inspire wondrous flights of fantasy, lift the spirits with good-natured humor, and lead to a deep and abiding respect for nature and the environment.

Of course, watching the Yogi Bear cartoons once made me think I could take on a black bear foraging for food at our family's camping site in Yellowstone National Park -- I was six years old and had to be physically restrained -- so I can see the down side as well. Still, dozens of animated films have made it abundantly clear that it's possible to lend human voices to the animal kingdom without dumbing the material down to idiocy and, when done right (Babe, Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, Joe's Apartment), live-action talking animals also deserve to be a treasured part of our cinematic heritage.

But not these. Here are seven (mostly) live-action movies featuring talking animals that attack our sense of what makes a movie good.

7. Underdog (2007)

When Hollywood screws around with my cherished childhood memories, I strain to give them the benefit of the doubt. There's no excuse, though, for this abomination of a movie. I realize that Wally Cox's dweeby voice would be impossible for someone else to replicate, but Jason Lee? Really?! A huge chunk of the original cartoon's charm was the very simple (cheap) animation, which relied upon the writers to come up with witty things for the actors to say. None of that was transplanted to the live-action movie and I can't imagine any children looking back fondly upon this version of Underdog in the future.

Before I talk about a "guilty pleasures" list, I'll start with the same disclaimer that everyone starts with when they talk about a "guilty pleasures" list: When it comes to entertainment, there shouldn't be any such thing as a guilty pleasure. If something is bad in an entertaining way, and you enjoy it, then so what? Just because you're enjoying it for reasons other than what the filmmaker intended (e.g., laughing at a movie that was supposed to be scary) doesn't mean you need to feel guilty about it. Now, if you tried to convince people that the movie is good -- not so-bad-it's-good, but actually GOOD -- well, then maybe your friends would question your taste. But hey, don't feel guilty. Let your freak flag fly!

Now then. The handsome devils at Moviefone asked readers what their favorite guilty pleasures are, and what do you know, the readers gave them some. Most of the nominated titles are ones that very few people would defend as being legitimately good, but that apparently lots of people are able to enjoy for other reasons: Battlefield Earth (pictured), Crossroads, Coyote Ugly, etc.

Having recently re-watched Anaconda for research purposes (really!), I agree with its inclusion on the list. It fails utterly at what it was trying to do, but it sure makes me laugh, particularly Jon Voight's campy performance that sounds like Christopher Walken mixed with Zorro.

The readers offer explanations for their choices, too. For example, on Howard the Duck, "Lisa41794" says, "Lea Thompson and alien duck have sex. What's more entertaining than that ... lol." What's more entertaining than that lol indeed, Lisa41794!

Check out the list and photo gallery to see what else made the list. And feel free to tell us what your favorite guilty pleasures are in the comments below.

In this day and age you can do anything with special effects. But can you do it well? I believe that you can, but Hollywood doesn't seem to be in agreement with my belief. Studios continue to put out movies with special effects that disappoint, and I think it is disrespectful to audiences. Either figure it out, or leave it out. Every time I see a bad effect in a movie, I know it could have been done better, or more imaginatively, and it frustrates the heck out of me. The worst is when I see a bad effect in a movie with mostly great effects, such as in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

A visual effect doesn't have to be great or even realistic as long as it works with the story and is believable -- I'll take Harryhausen or Henson over most of the CGI attempts lately. Unfortunately, Hollywood seems to half-heartedly strive for greatness and realism with every movie, and more often than not it fails to achieve either. In my thirty years I've seen some terrible visual effects, some only terrible in retrospect, some only terrible in perspective with what else has been done. I'm not usually surprised by bad effects, though, because I've developed a cynicism about effects, particularly about CGI, that causes me to expect the worst. Nonetheless, I've picked seven movies that did actually surprise me -- a lot.

1. King Kong (2005)

In The Return of the King, Peter Jackson has some bad effects shots, but at least they're just shots. In his next film, King Kong, he has bad effects sequences. And as with The Return of the King, they are all the more apparent and all the more frustrating because there are actually some great effects shots and sequences in King Kong (it did deserve the Oscar). The worst example in Kong is the dinosaur stampede. At first the sequence is tolerable because the dinos are rendered beautifully and the weak green-screen compositing is not any worse than what many of us grew up with. But as the sequence progresses, the interaction between the actors and the computer-generated dinos looks too fake, too much like something made long ago, before computers were even used. Both the part on the cliff and the part where the animals fall over each other are sloppy and unacceptable. It is a completely ironic sequence, too, since it begins with an exchange about movies looking real. At least someone thought to score the thing sped up with "Yakkety Sax" or it wouldn't be completely useless.