Director's Notes: "Switched"

What would it really feel like to walk around in someone else's shoes for a time?

What it would be like for a man to be...a woman? Or vice versa?

That concept is at the core of this week's House Between episode, "Switched."

Much like the ideas underlining "Addicted," the story behind 3.4 "Switched" goes all the way back to the second season of The House Between.

In particular, there was the possibility that, because of our shooting schedule in 2007, we would have time to shoot an eighth "bonus" episode. I had put out a call for stories, and gotten great and inventive responses from Jim Blanton ("Separated"), Bobby Schweizer ("Populated")  and also composer Mateo Latosa, who devised the story concept underlining "Switched."

Ultimately we shot my "Distressed" as the bonus season two episode (2.6), and Mateo's "Switched" got tabled until season three. Till now.

As you can probably guess from the title, this tale involves...a switch. Or many switches, as the case may be. Specifically, I'm referring to "Body Switches" the likes of which you would see in Star Trek's classic "Turnabout Intruder," wherein Captain Kirk and Janet Lester trade corporeal forms. Other sci-fi series have also played with this genre convention over the years, from The X-Files ("Dreamland") to Buffy the Vampire Slayer ("This Year's Girl"/"Who Are You?")

Still, I mostly had in mind Star Trek, and to that end I designed special visual effects to specifically resemble "Turnabout Intruder," arranged some Trek-style rock-the-boat moments, (when the camera tilts and everybody sways...) and had Mateo compose an incredible Trekkish musical cue for the teaser climax. I feel giddy every time I hear that cue...it's awesome.

But despite these deliberate tributes to a favorite and beloved sci-fi series, I also wanted to make certain that "Switched" carried some real heft and meaning behind the switches, much like we used the alternate universe tale ("Separated") to excavate unseen facets of our characters. So here, the body switch concept has lasting repercussions...ones that lead us right into the final two episodes of The House Between ("Exposed" and "Resolved.")

To the cast's everlasting credit, every single actor threw themselves into their performances, collaborated, worked hard, and did a fantastic job. If Bill, Theresa, Arlo, Brick, Travis and Astrid had to walk in one another's shoes for "Switched," than Tony, Alicia, Jim, Craig, Lee and Kim had to do the same. God, I love these guys!

Tonally, "Switched" is entirely different from anything we've ever done on The House Between. This has been a season of ambition...for better or worse. Every story has been quite different from the last, from setting up almost a new pilot with "Devoured" to going deep into character in "Addicted" to crafting a horror movie for "Scared" to the catharsis and transformational nature of "Switched."

Only you -- the viewer -- can tell me how we did, ultimately. But I do know this: I'm exceedingly proud of the cast for going in "Switched" where they've never gone before...and where they weren't always comfortable or safe going. They are truly a spectacular and talented bunch.

"Switched" premieres tomorrow!"

Theme Song of the Week: A View To A Kill (1985)

CULT TV MOVIE REVIEW: Night Slaves (1970)

Night Slaves (1970) may just be the dullest, cheesiest, most deeply silly TV movie of the seventies. And remember, I've seen Killdozer. It's a long, difficult slog through 75-minutes of ridiculous melodrama.

Directed by Ted Post, Night Slaves (written by the late, great Jerry Sohl) depicts the emotional journey of a man named Clay Howard (James Franciscus). He is disenchanted with his hot wife, Marjorie (Lee Grant), who is having an illicit affair with Clay's lawyer, Matt Russell.

One day, Clay is involved in a car accident and must undergo emergency surgery. The doctors implant a metal plate in his skull during the operation (though -- miraculously - they don't have to shave his head to do so...). Afterwards, Clay's surgeon recommends a vacation, one with "no pressure at all."

So Clay and Marjorie head off together to not-very-scenic Eldrid, California, a dusty old town that advertises itself as "a bit of the Old West." Translation: it's a studio back lot.

Clay soon notices that everyone in Eldrid is suspiciously sleepy, much like the audience of Night Slaves. He soon learns the reason.

By night, the townspeople including - dear god! - Sheriff Leslie Nielsen, turn into hypnotized zombies and are "herded like sheep" onto trucks and transported out of town to perform menial tasks for Noel (Andrew Prine), an alien life form who has taken the human form of the village idiot. Noel's space craft suffered "internal damage" while in flight and now Noel steals "four hours a night" from his human servants.

And here I thought Wal-Mart had atrocious labor practices...

Because of the metal plate lodged conveniently in his head, Clay is immune to Noel's dictatorial work orders. Instead, he falls immediately in love with the alien leader's only crew member, a naive technician named Nailil (Trish Sterling). Nailil shows Clay her damaged spaceship, as well as a selective invisible force field which she can pass through, but which Clay cannot. It blankets the town and prevents egress during the nightly work shift.

Even though they've just met -- and for a grand total of maybe an hour -- Clay and Nailil fall madly in love with each other. So when Noel's spacecraft plans to lift-off at 5:30 am one morning, Clay means to shed his Earthly form and be on board it...

Flaccidly paced, directed and performed, Night Slaves is an extremely tepid interspecies romance. Personally, I'll take combatants/would-be-lovers Angie Dickinson and Lloyd Bridges in Love War over Franciscus and Sterling here. They share no chemistry and it's not even remotely believable that the cynical Clay, so "unhappy on the treadmill" would drop his defenses in a mysterious town long enough to fall in love with...an alien. With the central romance generating no feeling whatsoever, Night Slaves is simply unconvincing.

I'm not totally clear on the details of Noel and his alien nature, either. He says he comes from a "psychokinetic race," one of "pure mind." He has taken human form to oversee the laborers, but his spaceship is clearly corporeal in nature, which baffles me. I mean, he needs humans to do metal work for him. Now explain to me why a formless alien would build a ship he can't repair himself? It sure is lucky he happened by Earth, a third-world sweatshop for free labor, I guess...

More importantly, without any corporeal form, how do Noel and Nailil actually fly their dinky white space ship? Don't they have to push buttons?

And would a 20th century man -- especially an attractive, athletic sort like James Franciscus - really want to surrender physicality to be forever with a "pure mind?" I mean, you can't have intercourse if you have no body to do it with. And Trish Sterling's character is super hot in the body department, but not much in the "pure mind" category, if you catch my drift.

Devoid of interesting locations, special effects, make-up or production values of any and all variety, Night Slaves is a laborious waste of time. When the climax arrives and Nailil and Clay run together through a meadow and embrace each other in slow motion, it descends to total camp.

"I'm sorry you were subjected to all this," Neil the alien declares near Night Slaves' finale.

Apology accepted.

Another Glimpse of The Final Frontier

So, while everyone was out seeing Watchmen this weekend, I was at home editing (madly...) the fourth episode of The House Between's third season. .But -- even with my brain in an editing program -- I knew there was a new Star Trek trailer burning up the old Internets.

So, after having watched the new trailer about a gazillion times, here are my thoughts:

1. The more I see of the Abrams re-imagination, the more sold I am on Pine as Kirk. And conversely (and rather unexpectedly...) the less sold I am on Quinto as Spock. For one thing, Pine has a good voice for Kirk. Quinto for Spock? Not so much.

2. It looks like the plot is going to involve Star Trek's version of the Death Star, a "doomsday"-type weapon capable of destroying an entire planet. Now, we've seen planet killers on Star Trek before (V'Ger, the Genesis Device, the "ribbon"/nexus, Nomad, Spinrad's "Doomsday Machine" and the space amoeba of "Immunity Syndrome" to name just a few...), so I hope this isn't too much of a retread. Then again, if this universe's Kirk is going to quickly develop some captain credentials with Starfleet and the Federation government, saving an entire planet is a good start, no?

3. Not even a glimpse of Leonard Nimoy. Boo. Come on, J.J....throw the longtime fans a bone.

4. The moment when Kirk takes the center seat of the U.S.S. Enterprise for the first time gives me goosebumps. If I get that feeling from a trailer -- and without it being Shatner -- then the movie must be doing something right. On the other hand, maybe it's just the portentous score...

5. "Fire everything!" Well, this re-boot is really going for the throat in terms of action, isn't it? Which, honestly is the way to sell a very expensive outer space movie to the masses. Even Gene Roddenberry had to sell Star Trek as an action-vehicle to NBC back in 1966 when he crafted the second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Of course, Star Trek is also supposed to be valuable social commentary, and this trailer reveals nothing of that franchise aspect. Will it be present, or is this a Star Trek simply going to be eye candy, not brain candy?

6. "James T. Kirk was a great man. But that was another life." That's a line of dialogue that should have been avoided at all costs, especially if Pine proves disappointing in the role of a lifetime.

TV REVIEW: Dollhouse: "Gray Hour"

Our Favorite Active, Echo (Eliza Dushku), goes on an "engagement" imprinted as a master-thief in this week's Dollhouse, titled "Gray Hour." The job involves stolen art, and a secret vault rendered penetrable for a brief span by a security update 'gray hour.'

Unfortunately for Echo and her fellow thieves, a mysterious cellphone transmission from Alpha -- a remote wipe -- transforms her back into innocent, skill-less Echo in mid-assignment. Which means that Topher, De Witt and Sierra at the Dollhouse facility must scramble to rescue Echo from the locked vault before security guards capture her.

In her "blank slate" persona, Echo is understandably confused to find herself far from the safety the Dollhouse womb, and Topher reports that she might undergo "extreme sensory overload," meaning Echo could become either passive or "Carrie at the prom."

Unfortunately, Echo doesn't really go either way, and the episode -- to adopt the lingo of the writers themselves -- becomes "one giant anticlimax."

"Gray Hour" features a terrific plot device (an Active wiped in mid-assignment), hints at the capabilities of the season's "big bad," Alpha (who has apparently developed technology far beyond even Topher's genius level...), and offers some interesting background information about the Actives, particularly that -- even wiped of memories -- they possess "instinctual survival tools," meaning that the strong will flock to the strong, and so forth.

There are many such good concepts at work on this series, and even underscoring this very episode of Dollhouse...so how come I don't like it better? Especially four episodes in?

Perhaps the answer rests with the dramatis personae: the characters -- usually Joss Whedon's strong suit. But Ballard (Penikott) is a cliche -- the dogged cop. De Witt (Williams) is a cold fish, and, if not a villain, at least playing her cards so close to the vest that we can't read her. And Topher (Kranz) is glib, arrogant, irritating and over-the-top. However -- most critically -- in terms of Sierra and Echo, it is extremely difficult to sympathize or identify with a blank-slate.

Dushku is a good actress. Perhaps even a remarkable one. To the extent that she manages to exude shades of Echo's "core" personality from week-to-week while "imprinted" with different characters is a testament to her talent. But it's simply not enough to make a viewing of Dollhouse feel...I don't know...intimate. Instead, the series feels distancing, not inviting...which makes it the exact opposite of Firefly or Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Since there are no compelling characters to undertake this journey with, there's some kind of emotional void marring Dollhouse. That void gets filled with action scenes that aren't that well-staged, quips that aren't that funny, or philosophy that is tantalizing...but also maddening, since it is tossed out in the form of minuscule bread crumbs.

I'm still being patient, and I still detect the glorious potential of the series. I love the idea that an individual maintains some sense of identity or self-awareness, even without memories...but I just really, really want to see the execution of the episodes improve.

A lot.

An episode shouldn't feel like a "giant anti-climax." If you hint at "Carrie at the prom," you better deliver Carrie at the prom. And if Echo as a "blank slate" is so helpless that she can't handle herself in a crisis...why are we following her? Why is she an interesting heroine? Why is she worthy of our time and attention?

I hope we find out. Soon.

The Longest Running Superhero TV Show in History Is...

...Smallville.

Derided back in 2001 as Kal-El's Creek (or Clark's Creek, or Dawson's Cape), Smallville -- this sturdy re-imagination of the Superboy mythos - has certainly established itself as a real survivor.

After all, Smallville was one of the few network shows to successfully make the jump from the now defunct WB to the CW. It has also survived the competition: a big-budget movie resurrection of its main character in 2006's Superman Returns.

Smallville has even survived -- and flourished -- after the departure of main characters/actors, like Michael Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor and Kristin Kreuk's Lana Lang.

Now renewed for a landmark ninth season, Smallville has lasted an impressive duration, one greater than Batman (1966-1969), Lois and Clark (1992-1996), The Adventures of Superman (1951-1958), or even Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003).

The only bailiwick in which the series hasn't witnessed much good luck is in the creation of a spin-off to replace it. Mercy Reef, the Aquaman re-imagination...sunk without a trace.

In all, this is a surprising turn of events for a superhero TV series that The Washington Post derided as "pandering to the WB''s adolescent audience" and Variety termed "one more semi-soap opera about beautiful teens with self- esteem problems."

And don't forget, the series was even criticized/protested early on for the fact that images in the pilot (of Clark Kent strung up in a Kansas corn field...) reminded some people of the Matt Shepard murder that occurred in October of 1998.

My opinion of Smallville? Well, the ubiquitous Dawson meme simply isn't true...it just happens to be a good (and really easy...) joke. I suspect most of the people who make that particular complaint haven't actually watched the show. At least not lately. Sure, the first season was a weak, "Freak of the Week" circus that seemed more like a (bad) knock-off of The X-Files than Superman.

However, by the third season, the series had established its own identity, and established it well. Which doesn't mean there aren't still some really terrible episodes you have to contend with (particularly one with a vampire sorority, and another with Lana unexpectedly possessed by a 17th century witch...) But these ridiculous moments are often mitigated by great, portentous ones (like the apocalyptic vision of Lex Luthor in the Oval Office, in "Hour Glass.")

It's also difficult to accuse this durable series of disrespecting Superman lore since it has lovingly paid tribute to the actors who made the character and his universe so memorable on film and television (with guest stars including Terence Stamp, Margot Kidder, Dean Cain, the late Christopher Reeve, and Wonder Woman herself, Lynda Carter).

Smallville also creatively incorporates many aspects of the mythos, from Zod and Jor-El to The Fortress of Solitude, to the Phantom Zone, and the larger DC universe (including Cyborg, The Flash, Green Arrow and Aquaman).

I suppose my bottom line is this: I can (usually...) view Smallville without pain and suffering, which I honestly can't say for any iteration of the popular Stargate SG:1, which I find truly cringe-worthy. I'll take Smallville over Stargate any day. I feel the same way about Smallville over Supernatural. Or Ghost Whisperer.

Although that's like being voted the nicest inmate in prison, as I am wont to say.

Regardless, I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and so without snark, I congratulate Smallville for its great success and longevity on network television.

And I can't help but wonder: does this mean my Smallville action figures are actually worth something?

Sci-Fi Wisdom of the Week

There are three basic types, Mr. Pizer: The Wills, the Won'ts, and the Can'ts. The Wills accomplish everything, the Won'ts oppose everything, and the Can'ts won't try anything.

-V.I.N.Cent (Roddy McDowall) in The Black Hole (1979)

BOOK REVIEW: Obscene, Indecent, Immoral and Offensive: 100+ Years of Censored, Banned, and Controversial Films

The history of the motion picture is not merely one of a technological art form's ascendancy to global prominence. It is also a history of censorship and attempted censorship.

Author Stephen Tropiano has written a detailed, informative and involving account of this dark legacy in his new reference book, Obscene, Indecent, Immoral and Offensive: 100+ Years of Censored, Banned and Controversial Films (Limelight Editions; 2009).

Tropiano's discourse commences in the year 1896 with Thomas Edison's technological marvel, the Vitascope.

In particular, one eighteen-second film produced for that format quickly proved both titillating and controversial. It was called The May Irwin Kiss and the short film (consisting of just one shot...) apparently scandalized as many viewers as it enthralled.

However, one prominent New York critic not only disliked the new technology and its early product, but went dramatically further. He termed the Vitascope and The May Irwin Kiss horrific things that called "for police interference."

This call for law enforcement action against a work of art represents, perhaps, the very genesis of film censorship. Accordingly, Tropiano's first chapter details this incident and other early attempts to suppress, ban or destroy films in the Silent Cinema Era. Among other things, he notes the 1909 creation of a "National Board" of censorship (a coalition of progressives, educators and Churchgoers...). An early Moral Majority, perhaps?

Tropiano's purpose in this text is to examine how the medium of film has contended with such institutions and censors, with organizations and individuals who believe (even, to this day...) that it is their "God-given" duty to determine what movies can and cannot say and show. Tropiano names names too, profiling such fascinating personalities as Miss Emma Viets of Kansas, who ruled over a state censorship board from 1920-1930. She considered it her duty, apparently, to protect the people from "displays of nude human figures," "passionate love scenes," and "loose conduct."

But importantly, Viets didn't simply suppress films she didn't like...she re-cut them according to her own sensibilities and belief system. She even re-cut the ending of an Academy Award nominated film, 1927's Sorrell and Son. She objected to an ending which involved euthanasia, and re-edited the film's climax to remove it. She did so with the excuse that the movie played too long and could stand cutting. Everybody's a film critic...

If Tropiano's book merely gazed at censored films and the personalities of censors over the last century, it would make for an interesting read, all right, but Obscene, Indecent, Immoral and Offensive is much more than that. Never one to ascribe matters to black-and-white interpretations, Tropiano devotes considerable time and space raising the question if censorship is ever acceptable or justified. Before you say "no," consider some of the examples that he provides.

Take Leni Riefenstahl, a German filmmaker who created a documentary "love letter" to Adolf Hitler called Triumph of the Will (1935). By all accounts, it was a film of brilliant, pioneering technique...and utterly loathsome content: an "aesthetic expression of fascist ideology and the grandeur, order and power of the Third Reich." So...are censors justified in banning this particular film (one that, by the way, has occasionally been viewed as an inspiration for the final scene of Star Wars [1977])?

Well then, how about D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation? It's another landmark film in terms of history, specifically in regards to technical acumen. Yet it is plainly racist in narrative and even pro-KKK. So is censorship the answer? Do viewers deserve the chance to see these films for themselves and decide their value (or lack thereof?) Or does the simple act of viewing Triumph of the Will or Birth of a Nation poison, debauch and corrupt the innocent?

Interesting questions, and Tropiano doesn't lecture or force his conclusions on us. He's a historian, not a moralist, and the stories are so intriguing, so bizarre so...messy...that it isn't necessary to editorialize (at least not often). Tropiano remembers in detail, for instance, the protests that surrounded The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). He points out that many of the "devout" people so actively picketing showings of the Scorsese film had not even seen the film they were protesting, and this raises another point. Don't censors have a duty to first actually watch things that might be considered objectionable before condemning them?

Scorsese's deeply spiritual film was hated by the religious right-- hypocritically -- while Mel Gibson's "torture porn" epic, Passion of the Christ (2004) , which was more violent and gratuitously gruesome than any horror film ever could hope to be, was applauded by the same crowd. Again, Tropiano doesn't shout "hypocrites," he simply compares the response to the two religious films.

Meticulously researched, impeccably written, and original in conception and execution. Tropiano makes for a studied -- and often very droll - tour guide through this material. He examines specific films and controversies (such as the one surrounding Clerks), the development of the ratings systems (PG-13, NC-17, etc.) and movie-oriented legal/crime scandals (there was a period in the 1970s when it seems Kubrick's Clockwork Orange was blamed for every violent crime committed in England...).

Obscene, Indecent, Immoral, and Offensive is thought-provoking, well-researched and broadly inclusive. It's a splendid chronicle of some of the biggest scandals and battles over "free speech" in our nation's popular culture. You can purchase the book at Applause/Limelight or through Amazon.com, and do so with my highest recommendation.

Theme Song of the Week: Flash Gordon (1980)

MOVIE REVIEW: Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)

In 2002, I wrote a film book that ended up as one of my most praised (not to mention best-selling...) director studies.

In An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith, I described how the New Jersey-born filmmaker serves as Generation X's Woody Allen; a writer/director obsessed with the holy comedy trifecta of love, romance and sex...and not necessarily in that order.

As a filmmaker, Kevin Smith is a Grade A intellect who deploys a grade school sense of humor -- a predilection for what he calls "dick and fart" jokes -- to make trenchant points about the universal verities of human nature. Smith's unique creative formula consists of canny Generation X touchstones or allusions, plus a focus on the nitty-gritty of romantic relationships (with a heavy focus on realism...) and more than a dash of absolutely raunchy, potty-mouth humor.

In the right proportions, and under the right circumstances, this can prove a magical equation. Accordingly, Smith's approach served him well with critics and audiences in the 1990s with films such as Clerks (1994), Chasing Amy (1997), and, to a lesser degree, Dogma (1999).

The 21st century hasn't been as kind to Smith or his cinematic work.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001) is indeed hysterically funny -- a gift to fans -- but perhaps too insular a product for the average movie-goer. Jersey Girl (2004) was accused of blunting Smith's delightfully raw edges...even if the film's heart was in the right place. And Clerks 2 (2006) -- regardless of the film's nostalgia factor and overall good humor -- was perceived by some as career retreat; a sanctuary where the filmmaker could weather the storm over the failure of Jersey Girl.

All this history, however, is but prologue leading up to the arrival of Kevin Smith's latest movie, Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008). To my delight, it's Smith's authentic return to top form. In fact, Zack and Miri finds the writer-director at his bawdiest and most clever.

I'll be more specific even than that: this comedy is likely Smith's finest cinematic outing since Chasing Amy, and perhaps the funniest since Clerks. I usually mock critics who declare that movies are laugh-out loud funny, but -- hell -- I laughed out loud in Zack and Miri. A lot.

Only Smith, an unrepentant X'er, could marry the syrupy romantic-comedy formula with the bracing, ridiculous nature of X-rated adult films and emerge with a movie that is not simply sweet, not merely compassionate, but actually life-affirming.

And surely only Smith could pepper his genre-bending comedy with so many off-the-wall-references to pop culture history. For instance, he gives Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979-1981) a shout-out with a reference to Twiki and Dr. Theopolis, but in a sexual context (!) And then Smith gives 1980s action-television a nod with an allusion to one character being something akin to a "filthy MacGyver."

Smith doesn't stop there, either. He sets his entire movie in the very burb where George A. Romero shot Dawn of the Dead (1979), called Monroeville. He even takes his cameras to the very mall (interior and exterior) where most of that movie's horrific action took place...and it looks exactly the same, thirty years later. Given that fact, there's some ironic subtext here about Zack and Miri being distinctly un-zombie-like in a town and world that seem to encourage conformity, consumption and zombie-ism.

And surely, only Kevin Smith could get away with Zack and Miri's first effort at a porno film. It's a film called Star Whores and it features characters including Darth Vibrator, Hung Solo, Luke Skybanger, and R2-T-Bag.

And did I mentioned the Phallus-shaped Dia-Noga?
In terms of story, Zack and Miri Make A Porno is the tale of two lovable losers, Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks). They have been best friends since high school and now, nearing thirty years old, they share an apartment together. Still, they've put up force fields in their personal life; careful never to stray into the dangers of a romantic (or sexual...) relationship. This is despite the fact that they argue, debate and laugh like an old married couple.

Zack and Miri can't make the rent for their shitty apartment, and their power and water gets turned off the very night of their ten-year high school reunion. At that event, Zack comes up with a brilliant money-making scheme after an encounter with two gay porn stars (Justin Long and Brandon Routh). He decides that he and Miri should make a porno film.

So, with an entourage of crazy characters in tow -- from money man Delaney (Craig Robinson) and videographer Deacon (Jeff Anderson), to a porno wannabe named Lester (Jason Mewes) and an industry veteran named Bubbles (Traci Lords). -- Miri and Zack are set to emerge Porn Stars for the Internet Age. Much of the film's tension (and comedy) arises from the fact that Miri and Zack -- "just friends" -- will finally have sex together...but on camera. The film's final act deals with the repercussions of their decision to do just that.

Given this set up, the first half of the film is a raunchy extravaganza, and the last half is something a bit more touching. Sometimes a good director knows how to get out of the way of his story and characters...and just let things unfold in front of the camera. That's what a trusting, confident and mellow Smith does with dynamic effect in the third act here. As Zack and Miri prepare to take center stage and film their sex scene together, all the outrageous comedy bells and whistles drop away. The audience is left with a painfully earnest, clumsy, raw, honest sequence that acknowledges the deep friendship between this "couple," and the gentleness, irritation and love with which they treat each other. In typical Smith fashion, the awkward scene unfolds and Zack and Miri never stop talking, never stop bickering, never stop being...in love.

I often decry the state of American film comedy in the 21st century. I hate how disposable studio comedies pretend to be brutal but serve only to reinforce the status quo in their third acts. I'm reminded, for example, of the abominable Wedding Crashers...which I fucking hated. That movie introduced two great scoundrels in Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn's characters, gave them some truly wicked comedic business to vet..but then spent the entire over-long film on reforming them both and proving that wedding crashing is, you know, bad.

The 40-Year Old Virgin is the same story. It starts out wicked and wonderful but ends up all smug happiness, hugs and puppies. It doesn't live up to the brutality of its title, and a comedy without brutality isn't worth a pot of spit.

What I enjoyed so much about Zack and Miri Make a Porno is that neither the characters -- nor Smith himself --back away from the premise, or ever stand in judgment of it. Zack and Miri do have sex on camera, in a porno, in this movie, and they don't flagellate, torture or punish themselves over that fact. Even better, the movie doesn't ask us to judge them or their illicit activities as immoral, bad or worthy of condemnation. Good comedy is observation, not judgment. Where movies like Wedding Crashers of 40-Year Old Virgin forget or ignore that important fact, Zack and Miri remembers. We don't go see a comedy to laugh a little, and then get a sermon. We see a comedy to laugh, and -- if we're lucky - connect with a unique world view or experience.

Also, Smith doesn't trade in stereotypes. Indeed, his characters are sometimes slightly-exaggerated (or larger than life, perhaps), but they're also -- miraculously -- very true to life. As with Holden and Alyssa in Chasing Amy, you'll detect something of yourself and your mate, spouse, or significant other in the tribulations, victories and pettiness of Zack and Miri. You'll recognize their fears, insecurities and dreams... and become invested in them and their success. I guarantee it.

That Smith can forge so strong a sense of identification amidst ridiculous humor (including a bubble gag with Traci Lords, and the best constipation joke in years...), is a testament to his talent...at observation. At listening.

Kevin Smith's movies are simultaneously forthright and without guile...and he's made a lot of enemies on all sides of the political spectrum by simply telling things like they are. From the right, Catholics went to war with Smith (one of their own...) over Dogma, and Smith had to contend with bomb threats against his family on a daily basis. From the left, Smith was bombarded by the Gestapo-like tactics of GLAAD for his use of the word "gay" as a playground pejorative in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Like that never happened before Kevin Smith...

And, true to form, Zack and Miri Make a Porno also proved highly controversial to moral watchdogs last year. Because it has the word...porno...in the title. Apparently many theater chains wouldn't screen the film, and Smith had to wrestle with the MPAA to avoid an X-rating. A result of such controversy is that the movie didn't make nearly as much money as it should have, or would have.

Which kind of sucks. So if you're inclined, give Zack and Miri Make a Porno a whirl on the old DVD player. If you're in tune with Smith's style and world-view, the film may remind you why you fell in love with your significant other. If not, at least you'll get a lot of really good laughs.

The 2008 Cyber Horror Awards Announced!

The "first-ever horror film awards decided by the online horror-blogging/writing community" have been unveiled by the Vault of Horror this morning. I'm honored to say I was one of the participating voters in this inaugural year. The results are fascinating too. It looks like a clean sweep for one particular contemporary horror effort; and I'll be reviewing that award-winning movie here on the blog soon. Hopefully these awards will become a tradition...

Anyway, check out all the 2008 award winners right here.