Oh Dear God NO!

Get a bunch of sci fi geeks in a room and mention the original “Star Wars” trilogy, and you will most likely be presented with one of the biggest nerd-gasms that you’ve ever seen. Now, mention the special editions and the prequel trilogy, and get ready for some serious nerd rage. I don’t think a single series of films creates so much passion from both ends of the spectrum, ever. In fact, I’m one of the most passionate about this one.
To me, the original “Star Wars” trilogy is something that is very special. They are among the small group of films that I saw at a very young age that first got me very interested in movies to begin with. I have seen them so many times over the years and yet I still cannot get tired of them. In fact, and this something I’m a little bit embarrassed to mention, I’ve sat down and watch the whole trilogy more than once in a single sitting.
However, I have some bones to pick with George Lucas. This guy just pisses me off, but not like Michael Bay (There is an almost endless list there, but that’s another story). No good old George pisses me off for just one reason: HE WON’T LEAVE STAR WARS ALONE! Why?! Do you really want to know? The guy wants money, that’s it. Lucas is a business man, and he was very smart when he made the first movies. Thanks to contracts and such, Lucas made off with a butt load of cash as well as the rights to the entire franchise. Granted with that money he did do things like help preserve classic films, helped create some of the recent advances in video and sound editing technology, and of course, through the creation of Lucas film, produced some other movies like “Indiana Jones”. Then, things started to drop off for George, (“Howard the Duck” anyone?) so basically, since he has the rights he can just reissue them in someway to make a quick buck since they are some of the most popular movies of all time and all. And he’s absolutely right, people will buy them again and again. (Talking from experience here.)
Then in the mid 90’s, something weird happened. First, the films were re-released in theaters, which was exciting for me because I had only been able to see them on video. It was awesome to get a chance to see these movies on the big screen, but these weren’t the same movies. They were the “Special” editions, and yeah, I could make the obvious joke here, but I won’t. Basically, Lucas was apparently always frustrated about certain things in the movies or had things he wanted to do but couldn’t due to effects limitations at the time. So he went back and added new scenes, effects and all that. And ooooooooh the back lash. First of all, the films are still relatively CGI free, most of the big effects scenes stay the same, which means the new CGI effects stand out. A lot. Like a sore thumb that keeps getting bigger because someone is constantly smashing it with a hammer. I mean they just stop the movies in their tracks. I could see why he wanted to do this, but good god, I never thought I’d see something so poorly done, AND IT WAS FUCKING STAR WARS!!! And just to show I’m not just being petty, I actually enjoyed it when Spielberg did the exact same thing to “E.T.” later. The changes he made worked in the movie’s favor and were done in far FAR better taste. I’ll admit that while the special editions don’t piss me off as much of the wastes of time that are the prequels (I’ll save that fun for another day.) they still bug me because it seems that they are the ones that Lucas has decided are his versions, so when finally released on DVD (Oh yeah, Mr. Lucas is also a freaking genius at building the anticipation on these things because the DVD release took FOREVER.) all us fans were royally pissed that there was no option to see the movies unaltered.
I must again ask why? There are tons of movies that were released different from what the filmmakers envisioned, but there is a director’s cut with it on the DVD. In fact, allow me to list some of these just from my own collection, off the top of my head.

- The “Alien” films
- The Abyss
- Apocalypse Now
- Blade Runner (seriously, every one of the five different versions is available for the fans to watch on this one)
- Dawn of the Dead
- E.T. (Why, yes George, Steven IS less of a dick than you.)
- Gladiator
- Terminator 2

In less than a minute, I just listed 11 movies. All of which have both versions of the movie available to the viewer, all in full quality. That’s a good thing. Even if the extended version wasn’t the “director’s cut” like the alternate version of Ridley Scott’s “Alien”, it’s still an option and it’s down to the viewer’s preference. This kind of set up makes everyone happy! And yes, I know that there has been a DVD release that DOES feature the original versions now, but they were released much later, and they are not remastered like the special editions were, which there is no excuse for because the films had to be remastered just to do the special editions. (Implying something there George?) So basically, you might as well dust off the VCR and track the films down on tape, which is what I did.
And finally I make it to the point. It has been announced that starting next year, all the “Star Wars” will be rereleased in theaters, IN 3D! No! Just no! If you want to rerelease these films again, don’t bother with the prequels and give us the unaltered versions of the originals, hell I’ll go see the special editions again, but for the love of god, don’t fuck with these movies anymore.
This is a really, really, really stupid idea. First of all, the prequels aren’t that old, Episode 1 only recently turned 10, and then other two are still fresh in the minds of people that went to see them. Also, this time you have no excuse George, you had final cut, free reign, AND the bleeding edge of special effect possibility at your finger tips, why are you changing them now? Oh, are you jealous that James Cameron broke the box office records with “Avatar”? Mad that the man actually was the only person that could top the box office of his last movie “Titanic”? Well, I’m sorry George, but this isn’t the way. You may have been able to hide what you were doing before, but here, there is no hiding it. You want more fucking money. I again must beg for the unaltered versions. Those are what people fell in love with. That is how you got so far. Can you even imagine how much all the fans you’ve pissed off would love to go and see those movies in theaters? Most of them never got to see the unaltered versions in theaters, the logic sounds pretty solid to me. And as a brief aside; to hell with 3D anyway. It’s a stupid gimmick that mostly gets used to cover up when a movie doesn’t have much going for it to begin with. And it’s also Hollywood getting desperate like when TV came out big in the 50’s, and they did the exact same thing! The only reason I let “Avatar” get away with it is because I saw it in 2D and to be honest, I still enjoyed it as a movie. It was entertaining. And that’s more than I can for the “Star Wars” prequels. Think about it people, do you really want Jar Jar Binks coming off the screen? I mean really?

Masochism Month Part 2: Romantic Comedies

Hello and welcome to the second part of my month long experiment of self mutilation, where I’m finding I have to keep sharp objects even farther away from my reach. This week I’m going to look at yet another part of that wholly abysmal genre, chick flicks. Though I’m cutting myself a break, sort of, with comedies. I love comedy in all its shapes and forms, so then this shouldn’t bug me that much. Right? ... Right?
Well, for the most part, yeah, it really doesn’t. Last week when I talked about “Dear John” I had a bit of a realization why I don’t really care for mushy chick flicks. A movie that has a love story as the ONLY real drama in it is very rarely all that interesting. Most of the time I just feel they are like filmed versions of being there while some other people are being all couple-y in front you. It’s just incredibly awkward and a bit annoying. This isn’t to say love stories just suck because they are love stories, but more they really don’t seem to like to work on their own very much. This is why I have a little bit of a soft spot for Romantic Comedies or RomComs as they are sometimes known. Most of the time in these movies, the love story kind of takes a back seat to the rest of what’s going on and evolves a little more interestingly, i.e. not boring and vague. Don’t get me wrong, watch too many all at once and I become extremely cynical again, this going back to the fact that they are very formulaic like the straight up love story. But if there is ever a way to get me to watch a chick flick, throwing in jokes is a good start.
That’s not to say they can’t still be eye gouging-ly awful. Speaking of which, let’s talk about “The Ugly Truth”. This movie is just stupid. I mean, comedies don’t ALWAYS have to be clever, stupid is fine, but that means it should still be funny, at least a little. “The Ugly Truth” is about the producer of a morning news program, Katherine Heigl of “Knocked up”/”Grey’s Anatomy” fame, who is you’re typical uptight/clumsy/OCD/spinsterish female character that just can’t find the right man for some reason. Oh wait, she has a list of things she needs a man to do/have, and she refuses to be with any guy that doesn't fit this list exactly to the letter for it is perfect and infallible! (…huh?) One day, she’s told that she has to put a new guy, Gerard “that oaf from ‘Gamer’” Butler, on the show. Butler is one of the most offensively sexist guys ever and Heigl doesn’t like him. (I’m somehow not shocked.) Of course you can see where this is going, through working together the two start to fall for one another and change that locked form of life they both have and it’s all so standard.
Ok, the performances here are by far MUCH better than last week. Everyone actually doesn’t seem like a High School drama club reject here, hell, Gerard Butler is audible without screaming in this movie! Heigl more or less plays the exact same character that she played in “Knocked Up” though, while there’s nothing wrong with that, it does seem to kind of give off that one note performance thing that most actors try to avoid. Most of the supporting cast is there to move the plot along, but the actors all take the parts and run with them, and I’d like to spot light the husband and wife anchor team, they have some nice comedic chemistry, even if what was scripted for them isn't all that funny. In fact, no one really is. Why is that? The script of course!
I must say it again. This movie just isn’t funny, at all. What’s the biggest problem? Butler’s character is an asshole. Not the charming Han Solo type, I mean to say the way he acts and talks is something that would probably get his nuts chopped off by the first woman he tried to talk to. Many other reviewers have called him sexist and misogynistic, and they are right, half the time. The other half, he’s supposed to be some tender, soft kind of person that’s been fucked over in the past and is embittered by it… And that really creates a problem, if he's that much of a fucking jerk, he basically has to end up secretly fighting crime and curing cancer in his down time before I'll actually consider him as an ok guy. How does finding out women have fucked him over and that he helps his sister take care of her son allow him to get away with calling women dogs, saying they can’t get men because they’re fat, or saying the way to a man’s heart is a blow job? In my book, it doesn’t. I’m sorry but the large amount of offensive shit that comes out of this prick’s mouth is just way too much to ever be likable. What’s the odd thing about this? He’s supposed to be the one that is sympathized with. That just boggles my mind, but then again, Heigel’s character is border lined psychotic if you ask me. She does back ground checks a guy she’s going on a date with… I mean, I can understand wanting to see if a guy’s a convicted rapist or something, but don’t think telling him you did it while you're in the middle of the first date is a smart move. And really, that list for that perfect guy of her’s, it’s just one of those ridiculous things that exists to give her her single character trait. Seriously, it’s all she gets, being uptight and crazy obsessive, it’s weird.
That and the set ups are usually one of two things: Stupid, like the whole back ground check thing, and right out of the gutter, what the movie defaults too. Example: Heigl saying ‘cock’ a bunch of times simply because “men don’t own the word.”

WARNING! CONTROVERSIAL COMEDY GEEK OUT APPROACHING!

Straight up sex jokes, aren’t funny. No, they aren’t, shut up. If they have some kind of silly context that isn't just pointing and saying “boobies!” then, yes, hilarious. But these days, it’s all about having tits on screen while people are acting silly or people just fucking each other while saying silly shit. That is stupid, AKA low brow to the point that the primordial ooze wouldn’t even laugh. In fairness though, this movie does actually have an example of a GOOD set up, Heigl’s character accidentally wearing vibrating panties to a business dinner and losing the remote in the restaurant. The idea there, I admit is pretty funny to think about. The execution is kind of meh, but it’s at least one decent effort. However, what happens when it tries things like just saying dirty words, naming parts of the human body, or miming sex acts? They either fail from the get go or get really old faster than that guy from the end of “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
All in all, I’d like to make some pun about this movie being an ugly blight on the face of humanity, buuuuuut I can’t really say that here. Don’t get me wrong, this movie is dumb, but it’s at least a decently acted kind of dumb and it has one or two slight chuckles in it. It’s still got Gerard Butler being an unlikable douche the whole fucking movie, and it’s a formulaic movie that doesn’t do anything new. It’s extremely forgettable and I don’t recommend it, there are far better RomComs out there. But I’ve certainly seen worse chick flick comedies, like “Bride Wars”.

SURPRISE! BONUS MINI-REVIEW!

I’m only going to talk briefly on this one because thinking back on this movie honestly hurts, a lot, but I figured I had justification for putting it at the end here for 2 reasons. One, it’s another comedy considered to be a chick flick and two, it’s one of the most god awful things I’ve ever sat through and I feel that time should at least amount to something. I’m just floored by this movie, I mean, who was the audience supposed to be? This little romp about two best friends that suddenly decide to hate each other’s guts because an administrative error has caused their weddings to both occur on the same day, is the most retarded movie I have ever seen. Yes, I know that term is not PC or anything but god! Nothing in this movie funny, charming, redeemable, or any other words that can normally be associated with good. It’s just two women acting like utter children and I guess we’re supposed to be thinking it’s funny, which it isn’t, at all. In fact, it really feels like this movie is down right cold hearted. The two main characters are more obsessed with the wedding on the same day thing than they are about the guys they are actually marrying, and I find that kind of counter productive. I know the common joke is that weddings are for the bride and all that, but really? You’re just going to have a total mental breakdown and make it your life’s obsession to spoil you’re BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING just because it’s on the same day as yours? What the fuck sense does that make? I’m pretty sure that would drive BOTH grooms away faster than anything. Not to mention that the movie then turns into a tattered patch work of unfunny, completely ridiculous “comedy” set pieces. Actually, at a few points there are some suggestions for compromises to make things work, but really, these two are far too childish.
Since they are really the only characters in this movie, I’m only talking about Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway… But, I don’t know what to say here. I’m shocked that two actresses that have been nominated for Oscars can give such fucking bad performances. I mean, even if you’re just yukin’ it up or doing it for a pay check you have some effort. Here, I don’t know what the fuck happened. These women are just annoying and they have no real other character traits, at least none that are actually shown. All you ever see is that they’re both selfish and at one point they were both friends. And I’m really not lying when I say that all the other characters have absolutely no baring on the plot at all and are often just dropped or are so far in the back ground they may as well not be there.
The attempts at humor here are just… No, I can’t even call them attempts. The… scenes that I guess are supposed to be funny (?) are all just dropping designer names in here and there while Hathaway and Hudson scream at each other, for about 90 minutes. That’s all there is, just the two of them trying to fuck with each other over probably the most petty, selfish thing ever. Does all this really amount to anything? No. Are there any real laughs? NO. Is there even anything that makes this movie worth watching? NO! FUCKING NO! NOTHING! It’s dumb, redundant, and I can’t believe that not even ONE of the insane number of people that it takes to make a studio film spoke up to point out how fucking stupid this whole thing was. Jesus! I’m mainly keeping this short because this was one of the worst reviewed movies of last year (and I would say it’s one of the worst of all time) so I'm not really saying anything new here. People know it's bad, but I sure as hell didn't think it could possibly be THIS bad.

Masochism Month Part 1: Dear John

You know what movies put me off the most? Chick flicks. It may not be that much of a surprise, me having testicles and all, but I really can’t stand them. They almost always have very little going for them, and they nearly always make me want to hurl. I can’t think of a single genre of movies that could possibly be worse. And that’s why, for your enjoyment my lovely fans, I’m going to completely torture myself for an entire month with one review a week going on about these terrible, terrible movies. So let’s begin with the movie that is a shining example of exactly why I consider this genre stupid and annoying, “Dear John”.
The movie is about a soldier named John, no shit, and the woman he falls in love with, named Savannah. He is deployed for a tour of service that lasts one year, and she promises to wait for him. Right at the end of his commitment however, the September 11th attack happens and John volunteers to stay longer to serve his country. But this leads to the question of if Savannah can wait that long for him to return…
First of all, the performances in this movie are pathetic, but the worst is from John, played by Channing Tatum. If you’ve ever seen the trailer for this movie, it has the scene that proves his performance is terrible, and I find that hilarious. He breaks down “crying” at the conflict of staying with Savannah or going back to the army and really, really cannot pull it off at all, and it just goes downhill from there. Savannah, Amanda Seyfried is just as bad, in fact, nearly every actor in this movie feels like they are phoning it in. It’s like no one involved in the production seriously wanted to try. The father is sedate and the supporting cast is practically non-existent. This is really sad because, Channing Tatum aside, the rest of the cast has proven before that they can in fact pull off a performance. Hell, this movie has fucking Elliot from “E.T.” in it! True, here he looks like one of those skeezy pervs you see going into strip clubs, but it’s still Henry Thomas, and he’s still a much better actor than this movie would lead you to believe.
And I think a lot of this had to come from the script. The story is an ok concept, but the execution is terrible. This is really my second biggest problem with the movie. It lacks all substance! Seriously! I have seen fucking hallmark cards that had more substance than this piece of shit! About half the movie is taken up with montages! They should have just called this “Montage: The Movie” and had that montage song from “South Park” as the only thing on the sound track. I know it may be harsh to complain about a love story having montages, because they all do, but “Dear John” abuses the fuck out of them. We have: A montage of John and Savannah going out, then an exposition scene, then more montage frolicking, another exposition scene, then a montage of John and Savannah going separate ways, then more montage of that, then 9/11 happens, more exposition, then more montage, and that’s how this movie goes on for two hours! Make a montage drinking game out of this and you’ll die of alcohol poisoning! Forgetting the fact that this makes the movie insanely fucking boring, I’m calling bullshit on the chemistry between these two because of it. All we fucking see is frolicking! We never really get a chance to see why they fall in love, other than the script saying so, and really it doesn’t seem like Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried even like each other that much. I would go so far as to say that Natalie Portman and Hayden Christianson had better chemistry in the “Star Wars” prequels, how sad is that?
Plus in the second act, Savannah dumps John with a Dear John (couldn’t resist, that joke was way too easy.) and he decides he has nothing left to live for and that he just wants to be a military man for the rest of his life. You know, because he couldn’t possibly find someone else or take care of his father or anything like that. What slays me most about this is that Savannah leaves John to marry Henry Thomas’ character, who has an autistic son, was abandoned his wife, and is dying of cancer. Why did she do it if she was so “in love” with John? Because it was the right thing to do apparently. Don't know why, but that was her reason. Doesn't stop her cock teasing John when she sees him again of course… The amount of clichés in that is so dense that I’m surprised that the universe didn’t come to an end because of it!
My biggest problem with this movie? Using 9/11 as a plot device! This is just tasteless, and I mean really tasteless. Maybe if it hadn’t been mentioned only ONCE in the whole movie, I’d be more lenient. Since it isn’t I say directly to the filmmakers this. You should be ashamed. Using national tragedies in movies is fine and good as long as you don’t belittle the severe nature of them. I hate to say this, but Michael Bay did a better job in “Pearl Harbor”. God I never thought I’d bring that movie up as good example, but it’s true. There the event is never forgotten even if the rest of the movie was the most idiotic thing I’ve ever seen. Here, there is exactly one scene that mentions it after rather tastelessly using the footage of the towers, and then nothing. Probably because an actual story would get in the way of all the montages. I may be overly harping on this, but since it’s John’s motivation to extend his service in the army, and is supposed to be important, I feel I’m well within my rights to give the filmmakers shit about just dropping it after one scene.
I usually skip talking about the music in my reviews, mostly because I feel that as long as it isn’t annoying or out of place, it’s doing it’s job and I have nothing much to say. Here though, I’ve never heard a more annoying soundtrack in my life. It’s all acoustic guitars and bad new age music. If it actually adds anything to the movie, it’s just to make it even more drool inducingly boring.
Overall, I have nothing positive to say about this movie. Nothing at all. At least “Alice in Wonderland” had cool visuals, and “Legion” had some unintentionally funny moments in it. Here, the acting sucks, the pacing is lazy, the love story stupid, and the soundtrack annoying. I just can’t believe in how many ways this movie utterly fails. It’s as if it set out to not have any entertainment value at all. Something many other chick flicks can actually claim to have. See you next week folks!

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

I love Tim Burton. I really do, I can’t think of a single film maker that has always made me want to watch his movies, just by name alone. They always have an interesting style and are usually pretty entertaining. Yeah, he’s had a few exceptions like the “Planet of the Apes” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” remakes, but being fair, I don’t really hate those. In fact, I can’t even say that I’ve actually hated anything that he’s ever done.
Then I watched his take on “Alice in Wonderland”. I was so psyched for this movie, I usually try to avoid that but this was a case where I couldn’t help it. This is Tim Fucking Burton! This is a guy that makes movies that are, if nothing else, nicely surreal. And this was a book that had things like giant hookah smoking caterpillar, talking animals, and things that make you grow and shrink just by eating them. If anything, this was a match made in fucking heaven! And yet, it still sucked! I can’t believe I’m saying that, but this movie sucked!
How did this happen? I mean, this makes my brain hurt trying to figure it out. Did the producers not let Burton have creative freedom? Or worse, did they just let him go nuts? I used to think that if the director has total control on production, they can always turn in something great. Now, thanks to George Lucas showing us what a moron he is, I’ve opened my mind to other options, and I sadly have to think option two was the case here. It really just seems Burton kept saying: “You know what we need here? An action scene. And here, we totally need a dragon thing voiced by Christopher Lee that only has one line.” AND NO ONE STOPPED HIM! No one at any point, pointed out if something was the most idiotic thing they’ve ever heard in their life. This movie makes less sense than the book, doesn’t really go anywhere really, and just kind of stops at the end. Ummm… the phrase “what the fuck?” comes to mind here. I’ve actually pondered this movie for a few weeks and I still can’t even pick where to start explaining the badness here, but dammit I’m going to try.
First, I’ll get the small amount of praise I have out of the way here: Visually, this movie is amazing. Wonderland is twisted and dark with Burton’s trademark style and design. The final battle at the climax looks amazing, I’d almost say it was epic even. And the character designs, with one real exception, are actually interesting and really feel like some of the creatures are coming alive right out of the book. It was nice to see, and had a small glimmer of fascination for me.
Here however, my hatred begins. This plot makes no sense. No. Don’t even start by saying “the book didn’t make sense either”, that’s a weak argument. The book was exactly what the title said it was, a girl named ALICE, travels to WONDERLAND, and has ADVENTURES, that’s it. Couple that with the fact this book has been adapted several times into other movies and your argument will get less and less valid. The plot of the book is a girl falls down a hole, wanders through a magical world with fun creatures while keeping her sanity, and goes home. Not too hard. Now, here are some questions I came up with watching the Tim Burton movie:

“Why does this movie start off like ‘Pride and Prejudice’ as written by someone that has never read the book?”

“Ummm…. Why do all the characters call this place Underland?”

“Who’s the Darth Vader rip off being played by the dad from ‘Back to the Future’?”

“What is the point of all this? I mean, how is this entertaining?”

“Why am I getting a huge ‘Star Wars’ vibe here?”

“Is this movie ever going to try?”

“Seriously, who let Tim Burton watch ‘Star Wars’ too much in pre-production?”

“Why am I still watching this?”

I’m drawing blanks on the answers. But here’s how I’ll sum up the movie’s plot: Watch the original “Star Wars” trilogy, condense the whole story into about an hour and a half, remove all the good stuff, and then try to make it seem random and disjointed. There you go. It’s actually why I got so confused watching this movie. At times, it feels like, ok so she’s going on a little quest thing now, no wait, she’s still kind of just wandering, seeing weird looking stuff. Suddenly, a plot element will show up, introduce new stuff, and now we’re on that quest again. Yeah, this was kind of what happened in the book and in other adaptations, but the difference here is that this isn’t interesting. It took a fascinating romp through another world, the only motivation really being Alice’s curiosity, and turned it into a movie about rebels trying to fight an evil ruler that has an unstoppable weapon that can only be destroyed by the main character. I’m fine with trying to give the movie a more cohesive plot, but I mean really? Are you fucking serious? It’s pretty obvious the plot you’re futilely forcing in doesn’t belong. I almost got to the point where I wanted to try and put the “Star Wars” music on, just because it was getting that ridiculous.
Added to that, it doesn’t seem like any of the characters work in this story. I don’t care how much Tim Burton says in interviews that he wanted to make his own version. I don’t care if it looks pretty. I don’t fucking care if Ann Hathaway is some weird witch/queen/I don’t know what kind of thing! This isn’t going to cut it! Maybe, MAYBE if the movie was half an hour to forty-five minutes longer, and you actually had time to, I don’t know, set up and finish story elements in less than five minutes of total run time? If this movie had just decided that it wanted to either have a story, or be totally random I honestly wouldn’t care. I’d call it a mediocre rip off that looked nice, or something weird, but maybe a little fun and be done with it. But no, it’s a disjointed mess that tries to have both no story, and too much story. This is just sad, sloppy, lazy film making.
The characters were, well… I’m not sure what to say. No one save Alice, the Hatter, the Red and White Queens, and the Cheshire Cat has any real significant screen time to do much of anything. They’re just there. They aren’t bad or anything, actually most of the performances are pretty good, but they make no real mark. The two Queens, played by Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter, are just… I hesitate to use the word strange since this is supposed to be Wonder… Sorry, UNDERland, but I’m just bewildered about these two. They don’t really seem to do anything until the end of the movie, (SPOILER ALERT) where they then proceed to do even more nothing. The Red Queen doesn’t come on screen until about half an hour in, and most of her character traits are told to us in exposition before Bonham Carter even starts gnawing on the scenery, where she just chews and chews and really that’s it. No rhyme or reason for her other than the movie needed a villain. And I still can’t find any fucking reason why Anne Hathaway’s character is in this movie! Yeah, I guess she’s the leader that will take back the throne and rule justly, but if all you’re going to do is explain who she is, and she’s going to do pretty much nothing the whole movie, why is she here?
The one that mystified me the most though, was the Hatter. I don’t have as many questions as the two queens, in fact, I think he’s the character I have the fewest gripes about, but I do have one question that has lingered in my mind:

“Why does Johnny Depp look like Ronald MacDonald in the late stages of meth addiction?”

You know that one exception to character design I mentioned? Ta da! Here it is! Granted I saw the design and knew what he looked like going in, but I figured I could get over it as the movie went on. I was wrong. I just kept sitting there, wondering how any of the other actors couldn’t keep from laughing the whole time. Maybe if it was the crazy story from the book this would work, but if you’re going to have the Hatter say things that are supposed to be serious… Yeah, that design is not working.
Basically, this movie raises too many questions in all the wrong ways. Not the least of which was, why? What was the fucking point?! Granted the visuals were cool, and the editing was smooth, but that’s it. From a purely technical stand point, this movie is really interesting. But as far as story, I go back to my initial “what the fuck?” from earlier. I’m going to just call this the Tim Burton equivalent to “The Phantom Menace”, so much anticipation, so much disappointment.

Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)

(SPOILER ALERT, SERIOUSLY THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY)

… I don’t know how to open this. Should I just talk about how remakes are usually pointless again? Should I mention the fact that the original “Nightmare on Elm Street” is one of my favorite movies? Should I bitch about the producer Michael Bay being a man with no actual talent that has seemed to make it his goal to screw over anything that has made movies good? No, I should really just start with the fact that I saw this movie several weeks ago and it’s still got me angry! This movie is just bad. It doesn’t even seem to be trying and it’s just a cash grab using the name only. I actually felt dirty after leaving this movie. I literally felt like I had to sit there and watch the director rape a franchise and character that I love by turning it into a sloppy, stupid, poorly executed, idiotic mountain of pure failure.
Those who have lived under a rock for the past 26 years, the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series put New Line Cinema on the map as a studio. The plot was there are a bunch of teenagers that are being stalked by a killer in their dreams. This killer, named Freddy Kruger, was a child murderer and molester that was killed be the parents of the children that he hurt after he was released due to a technicality and this is his revenge. It was simple, yet at the same time had a nice new angle to the slasher craze, not to mention that most every video store in the country has the image of Freddy Kruger on the wall somewhere if you actually go look. So this is a movie with a large fan base to say the least. Did it really need to be remade?!
I could understand “Clash of the Titans”, hell “Friday the 13th” didn’t bug me because honestly the first one wasn’t that great a movie to me. Yeah it and “Halloween” set up the slasher standard, but it really didn’t impress me that much. “Nightmare” was an interesting idea and actually was genuinely creepy. I was 16 when I saw it and I had nightmares that night.
The remake just takes everything that made the original good and fucks it up so bad. No, it actually goes even farther! It takes things that are good ideas in theory, and then executes them so poorly on top of fucking up the original ideas! Like the idea that after staying awake for too many days you can dream while still being awake, but the kids can usually just suddenly snap out of it, so it’s a mute point really. This is without doubt one of the laziest scripts I’ve seen since “Highlander 2: The Quickening” or well, everything Eli Roth has ever written. Here are some examples: The parents were some how able to make their kids not only forget Freddy molested them, but that they even went to the same school together before junior high school. (HOW???) The kids believe that Freddy is actually going to be able to kill them after about one line usually. (WHY???) And, oh I almost forgot, they try and play off the idea that maybe Freddy was innocent, right before they prove that he wasn’t. I mean, that is just… Wow, I was sitting in the theater just watching these events unfold and all I could see was plot hole after plot hole after plot hole. I’m not saying that they have to give us crap tons of exposition, because that just gives us “Legion”, but really all the things I just talked about are either never explained while insulting our intelligence, or just makes the characters look incredibly stupid. Try this on for size, one guy shows up, unannounced at the main character’s house, covered in blood. He then says he didn’t kill the girl he was with, it just happened and it was someone that was in her dream. At this point they’ve kind of sort tried to establish that the characters are all having the same dream like in the first movie, but they didn’t really say that they felt like they were in that much danger, at least Nancy didn’t. So when a guy covered in blood shows up and says it’s ok, he didn’t do it she was killed in a dream AND this person just buys it right there I call bullshit!
In the first movie, they show that everyone had the same dream yeah, but they were all there when Tina was killed too, so it made much more sense for Nancy to believe that the guy could kill them in their dreams! And even then she still wasn’t convinced at first! It’s like the script to this movie was only half finished, but they decided to shoot it anyway! I could go on and on listing the problems with it because that’s really all this movie is, but there is way more to get to.
These performances are just bad, and I mean bad in a way that makes people from “The Final Destination” look like they could successfully pull off Shakespeare. True I never expect greatness from horror movies as far as acting, but seriously, these people are fucking pathetic! None of them stand out at all; they’re all just the dumb stereotypes that we always see. The jock, the bad kid, the dumb girl, the awkward couple that both like each other but neither of them actually have the guts to ask the other out. It’s just clichéd and really really gives us no attachment to these people and gets to a point where I was actually laughing when they died a few times. And Nancy, played by Rooney Mara, is the worst of all because she basically does absolutely nothing for half the movie while we follow another character and then when she is portrayed as doing something, she just goes to the library and looks through old files telling us things that we pretty much already knew. So she does next to nothing through out the movie! Her would be boyfriend Quentin, Kyle Gallner, is also fairly bland but he at least has some personality so I actually kind of liked him, kind of. He at least wasn’t annoying or super boring like everyone else.
But aside from the shitty script, the terrible performances and the plain fact that this movie didn’t need to be remade, Freddy is a joke. Yes, I know in the sequels he became the punch line king of killers, but I don’t mean he’s a silly character, I mean here he’s not threatening at all! The one thing that seems like it might have actually saved this waste of film was that Jackie Earl Haley got cast as Freddy. I was holding out the faintest hope that this guy could give us a really creepy Freddy, just like Robert Englund did in the first movie. But sadly, while Haley has his moments of creepy, he’s given way too many bad jokes, his presence is surprisingly un-menacing and really he looks like crap! I’m not kidding, he looks like one of those aliens from “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” if it was put in the microwave. That’s not scary! Nothing about this movie is! And fucking up Freddy’s appearance was the first problem! Add in the fact that he just utters bad, and I mean really bad jokes, and the fact that when his claws touch ANYTHING they spark and that doesn’t even begin to make sense! HOW DO YOU FUCK UP SOMETHING SO GODDAMN SIMPLE?!
And don’t even get me started on what this movie actually tries to scare you with. Jump scares, that’s it. I hate jump scares. The moment that you have one in a movie, that’s it you can’t do it again. But this movie seems to have been dropped on its head as it does them over and over and over. That’s all we get! There is no tension, no atmosphere and the dream world is drastically under used, mostly because that would probably be good and get in the way of the jump scares. God this movie doesn’t give any effort at all!
Is there any point in continuing? This movie was just stupid. It actually took an interesting idea, and just makes it shit pure and simple. I think it should come as no surprise that I just hated this fucking movie, and don’t recommend it at all. If I could have my way; the negative, script, every print made and Michael Bay would be dropped down a volcano to never blight the cinemas ever again. Who’s with me?

Daybreakers

Finally! God I only hoped this day would come again! I’d hoped but never thought this would actually happen as quickly as it did, but wow this is great! At long last, a vampire movie with actual freaking vampires in it! Fuck “Twilight”! To fucking hell with those movies! They’re boring, stupid, boring, sexist, a terrible love story and did I mention boring? But I think the biggest problem for me was this…. VAMPIRES DON’T FUCKING SPARKLE IN THE DAY LIGHT!!! They catch on fire and die! It’s established lore and it’s something everyone knows and this movie’s opening I like to think is a big middle finger to that stupid stupid fucking idea.
Whew, ok so “Daybreakers”. The plot of the movie is that the world has succumb to a plague that turns everyone into vampires. The remaining humans are scattered and hunted down to be farmed for blood, but the supply is dwindling and they need to find a substitute or they will die after turning into vicious Nosferateau looking things that just have feeding on their mind. It’s an interesting concept and a strange way to take the idea of the vampire and blood as addiction or disease and add the idea of using its lack as a metaphor for oil. Yeah it’s something everyone is doing these days, and it’s honestly getting a little annoying but it was I think done pretty well here. The pace never drags and it doesn’t really preach like other movies, it just uses it within the story.
It’s assisted by the movie’s brilliant production design, which perfectly subjects to this new world like Ridley Scott was able to do in “Blade Runner”. It’s starkly ominous and dull like things are beginning to get neglected. There are little touches like the amount of blood the coffee shops are putting in the coffee is being used as a marketing tool. The design of the cars being able to drive the vampires safely in the daylight is also very interesting and adds to the world as a whole.
And immersing us in this world is a great way to set the stage for the performances, which all do their job. Really that’s all I can say. Willem Defoe plays his part with competence and is very good as the former vampire in the film. Ethan Hawke adds nice vulnerability to his character and adds to the idea that the vampires here aren’t mindless, some want their humanity back. But if I had to say anyone steals the show, it’s the villain played by Sam Neil. His character is such a guy you love to hate. I think the peak of his awesome villainy is towards the end where he’s drinking blood out of a wine glass and talking about how it is packed with the great smell of fear, god it’s nice to have an awesome vampire like this after those pussies from “Twilight”.
Plus the make up effects are just amazing. Yes, this movie has CGI, it’s an unavoidable thing these days. But really, it’s mostly for backgrounds and cityscapes, the creatures are mostly suits and prosthetics, really fucking amazing prosthetics and suits. They have a nice Nosferateau feel to them and are very articulate. To top it off they actually seemed to have hired people that know how to act to play the starved vampires. The characters have the tiniest glimmer of humanity left in them but they’ve fully gone dependant on blood as it is their first and main drive. It perfectly shows that the right person in the right kind of suit can work way better CG characters, and they didn’t need to hire Doug Jones for it!
The script is tightly written, and really has nothing that glaringly stands out as a flaw. The story makes sense, the plot flows nicely, all the changes to characters don’t come out of the blue and the main goal of finding the substitute, or better yet, a cure keeps the audience engaged and really brings us into the story. Same with the editing and I already talked about the production design.
This is a perfect example of a movie that just works. Are there things I could nit pick? Oh yeah every movie has those. The difference here is in a bad movie, the nit picks become all the more glaring because honestly, the movie sucks hardcore so why should we let it get away with them? However in a good movie, you may notice, but why should you care? The rest of the movie is so good that it can get away with them. Like “Gremlins”. I love the movie but when I stop and think there are some HUGE plot holes in that movie, but the rest is so well done that I honestly don’t care. So what if snow is water and if the Gremlins touch it they should multiple like rabbits on Viagra? I don't care, I'm entertained! Really "Daybreakers" is just good. I can’t talk about it enough. It’s tightly written, full of drama and action without being silly and it’s well acted. Unlike “Twilight” which I really want to just stop at this point. This fad is probably the most damaging thing that has come out of the last decade of Pop Culture. However, I like to think that “Twilight” is just that, a fad. It’s something that is going to die out after awhile and be forgotten as our generation’s “What the fuck were we thinking?” pop phenomenon, like leisure suits or most of the fashion from the 80’s. I really think that “Daybreakers” will end up being a cult classic. This movie will last and “Twilight” won’t. I like that idea.

Dances with Wolves

Ok, so last time I made reference to “Dances with Wolves” being a film that I can’t stand. Well I got some negative feedback about that comment since it did win best picture, it was very successful and has made its way on to a lot of top 100 lists. And I must also confess, I had never been able to finish it until recently, when I watched it to show that I have credibility as a critic. Actually, this movie and I have quite a history, over the last 8 or so years I’ve sat down and tried to watch this movie at least five times, and have never been able to do it. In essence, if I was Batman, this movie would be my Joker. This is the only movie that I’ve ever just stopped watching because I couldn’t stand it. It’s not so much that the movie is terrible, or riddled with plot holes, or has a ridiculous story or anything like that. No, the reason that I have never been able to finish the movie until now is also my biggest problem with it as a film. IT IS SO FUCKING BORING!
This movie is so goddamn tedious in the first half that it always just made me so uninterested in what was going on that I did not want to go to the end because the boredom lasts FOUR FUCKING HOURS! Now, before you say things like “What? Does a movie have to have gripping action to get you into it?” or “Jeez not every movie can be 90 minutes.” I just want to say something: Some of my picks for best movies of all time are things like “Barry Lyndon”, “Gone with the Wind”, “Lawrence of Arabia”, and “The Godfather 1 and 2”, all pushing the three to four hour line. In fact, one of the DVD’s I’m most fond of in my collection is “I, Claudius” which is a mini series that lasts over 12 hours and has no flashy effects or action. I love all these films. They are all great epics and have a steady pace that builds the atmosphere while pulling you into the story. “Dances with Wolves” does not do this!
As such I put all the blame on Kevin Costner. I hate this man. I know I’ve given a lot of actors crap about being terrible or boring in movies, but they have nothing on Costner. I have yet to see a movie that actually shows him trying to pull off a performance, it’s always just Kevin Costner being Kevin Costner and loving that he’s Kevin Costner. He can and will destroy any enthusiasm I have for a movie faster than anything else I can think of. He is so boring and bland in this movie, AND he’s the main character! Doing this is something that detaches me from whatever happens to him because I honestly just don’t care. But that is just the icing on the cake, because this was Costner’s debut behind the camera as director, and boy does it ever show.
The reason this movie is so tedious is because Costner doesn’t seem to understand the idea of subtly. He constantly, and I really mean constantly, tells us the same information over and over and over and over. The entire time I was watching this movie I literally shouted “Stop beating a dead horse!” at the screen several times. A great example is the opening where he learns he’s probably going to lose his leg to a wound, and we hold on four separate cut aways to show that he doesn’t want to lose it. Really, did we need to have that constantly bored into our mind when we’ve figured it out after the first two? Hell it’s one of the first lines of the movie making all the extra cut aways that much more annoying! To top it off, the scene leads to Costner attempting suicide (YAY!) by having the Confederacy fire at him. Then, like a Schwarzengger movie, THEY ALL MISS HIM! This act of abject cowardice distracts the confederates long enough for the Union to promptly own the bad guys and Costner is seen as a mighty hero. This part just bugs me because, as star and director, it just seems like this scene exists purely to stroke Costner’s ego. Yeah it leads to him getting posted at Fort Sedgwick, but couldn’t he have been assigned to it? Or some other way than the fucking over the top stupid moment we just got?
What really gets me is people say that this movie needs to be seen as an epic so that’s why the long run time. People, an epic is something grand, big, visually interesting, sweeping and thrilling. They are so long because the stories they tell are so multi-layered that they need to time to gracefully bring them to a close without being abrupt or leaving unfinished plot threads. The story of “Dances with Wolves” is not multi-layered and Kevin Costner dragging the dead bodies of five elk, or deer, or whatever the hell they were, out of a pond over and over does not make a movie an epic! It makes it tedious to the point of aggravation! Why do we need to see him pull ALL of them out? One or two would be fine and then cut to him burning the pile because we can figure the rest out. We can Mr. Costner, we smart enough, really.
To be fair, once I finally suffered through the first couple hours where basically the same things happened several times, this movie actually gets pretty damn good. It’s still filled with some useless scenes and some rather clunky editing, but at least there are other people that show up for Costner to interact with and the useless scenes are fewer and further between. Actually, aside from Costner, everyone involved gives stunning performances. No joke, all the scenes with the native tribe are really engaging and get me back into the movie despite the large amount of Costner Blandness that is prevalent through out. Mary McDonnell is amazing as a white woman raised by the Sioux named Stands with a Fist, and Rodney Grant really grabbed me as the warrior Wind in His Hair. Hell I could go on and on about all the characters and how good they are because they all were amazing. The fact that a good chuck of the second half has to do with Costner observing daily life in the tribe also makes you want to see more because it is so damned interesting, and the buffalo hunt that finishes the first half is truly an epic moment. The one epic moment this movie has mind you, but I am always one to give credit where it’s due.
I also love the portrayal of the Sioux in this movie, and that is the film’s biggest strength. It’s a nice change of pace since Native Americans were normally seen as evil, blood thirsty savages with no souls in movies prior to this. Here the Sioux are shown as diplomatic, noble, and just trying to survive in what little land they’ve got left after Manifest Destiny has basically taken everything else. It is a grand statement that shattered stereotypes and really made me realize why this movie is as renowned as it is.
And I would be a huge hypocrite if I didn’t mention that the cinematography in this movie is just amazing. Every shot is beautifully framed and it really showcases the beautiful location they filmed in. Being somewhat of a would be amateur photographer I really love things like this, it makes the film awesome to look at even during those tedious parts in at the start, though it doesn’t make up for them.
So what are my final thoughts on this movie? I don’t hate it, but it’s not great by any means. It’s good, something that you watch once, maybe twice and that’s it. Sorry to both those wanting something more hate filled and to those wanting me to give this movie a standing ovation in this review, but I can sum it up pretty easily. The first half is shit, the second half is really good. That’s all I can really say, and the reason I didn’t ever have the desire to finish it in the past is because the first half is so insanely fucking boring. Yes, it picks up a lot in the second half, but to me that just highlights how boring the first half was. We spend so much time building Costner’s character and yet we never really get a glimpse at what his character is actually like, there are no real traits he has that make us want to see what happens to him. Hell, you could probably put a card board cut out into the role and it would still have the same effect, save for making the sex scene a little weirder. It showcases a misstep in him both directing and starring as he can’t put any character into his performance because this was his first movie be hind the camera and he probably had more shots lists and notes for other actors on his mind than his actual performance, not that he’s ever put a ton of thought into roles before or since. But what bugs me most is that a lot of the scenes, mostly in the first half, come off as very pretentious and I hate when a movie is doing arty shots or scenes for the sake of being arty and not really having a big point behind it. It’s overall a good movie, but I will not hold it against people if they get bored to tears in the first half and shut it off.

Legion

“Legion”. “Legion”. “Legion”. Why? I mean you had the potential to at least be ok, maybe even good. Did you live to that potential? Obviously not since I have to ask, but that just begs the question of what even qualifies as potential anymore. I mean this movie called itself an epic. It said it was a visual spectacle. Hell, my interest was at least peaked, and I’m a bitter movie curmudgeon that loves nothing until it actually shows the goods! Plus, I’ve said over and over that I am sadly having to be more and more of the opinion that the action genre has had it’s time and would probably be better off just dying off, but some movies just want to cling to the idea that they can bring it back in some fused or bastardized form. Sometimes that can be interesting and fun like “From Dusk Till Dawn” or “Sin City”, or bad like… Well, this movie. I’m sorry in advanced to this movie’s defenders, odd enough as it is that this movie has defenders, but this movie just blows. I mean it’s just bad.
Let me count the ways, shall I? Let’s start with the story. Now, while I’ve been a big defender of “Avatar”, despite the fact that the movie’s story is largely borrowed from at least three sources, it doesn’t bug me. I notice it, but in a way, the three films it “steals” from are actually improved in its story and don’t really feel like they are being stolen, more added upon. It’s taking something that was done once, and either combines it with something else or does it much better. For example, many people say that “Avatar” was simply a rehash of “Dances with Wolves”, a film that I just can’t stand. Odd really, since I loved “Avatar”, maybe it was just the first time “Dances with Wolves” was actually interesting enough to grab me after the first hour this time, I don’t know.
Now, I’ve said all that to say that I’m one of those guys that can sit there and find so many other stories that have been used for plays or movies or what have you. Normally, I'm actually not that peeved about it, because usually, at least SOME effort is made to hide the new movie as it's own creation. But really, this movie just can’t seem to figure out what it wants to…. Rip off. God I hate that term, but there is nothing else to describe this! I mean wow! In this movie, in one sitting, I pulled out “Evil Dead”, “The Omen”, and “The Terminator” of all things. I mean this is just shoddy at best. This is a movie that was either written by producers, or it was something they tried to tailor as something "new", but then again, maybe the joke’s on us here and they just want a laugh on the way to the bank with our money.
Let’s talk about action sequences, because what are those anymore? I mean the director here seems to have an idea, because most of the time he seems to know how to make them fun, yet halfway in, and I’m not kidding here, he turns the lights off. I’m not joking; he just flat cuts the lights at least three times! I wouldn’t mind since this movie kind of tries to be horror at times, but the amount of action leading up to the lights going out, is really just too much. When it happens I’m not so much scared, as pissed that now I can’t see anything and my cool action sequence is ruined by the horror aspect trying to butt in. That's even another problem, the horror in this movie is silly. When the evil old lady first appears and starts fucking people up, I just laugh because, while I'm sure the point is to show that the Angels add strength when possessing people (yeah, Angels possess people here.) this just comes off as hilarious. I'm sorry but seeing an old woman throw Dennis Quaid across the room is just fucking funny! It’s a perfect example of a genre combo that is just poorly executed… Along with pretty much everything else in this movie actually, because nothing is really done well.
The script is just pathetic, and I really mean pathetic. It’s all: “What’s going on?!” and “Why me?” and a lot, and I really mean this, A LOT of exposition. Seriously for every minute of something actually happening in this movie, there is at least five minutes of talking. This movie is about an hour and 40 minutes, so that means that of 100 minutes of total run time, we get about 20 minutes, if that of either bad action or bad horror. The rest is literally just explaining the plot. What really pissed me off was at the end where in the middle of a fight they’ve been building the whole movie, they just stop and have a pow wow to talk about stuff. THIS. ISN’T. FILM-MAKING!!! In fact this scene tries to be more like a play, and normally I’m down with that idea. But when you’re movie’s built as an action/horror film, well it’s out of place to be nice, and horribly idiotic in all other cases.
That and the performances are just shit. Dennis Quaid, who I mentioned in my “Pandorum” review, makes an appearance and frankly needs to fire his agent. I mean wow, I may have given him shit for “Pandorum”, but this guy really is not that bad an actor. I loved “Innerspace” and “Dragonheart”, his performance in both in particular, it’s just sad to see him here. Although much sadder is Paul Bettany. If I may directly speak to the actor, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?! I wouldn’t care if you were actually someone that had not had a good run in movies, but you were in no less that TWO Best Picture nominees in less that four years, and “Firewall”, while silly at times, was actually slightly successful and hell; “The Da Vinci Code” was actually largely successful. I’d understand if you were hurting for work, but I don’t see you as being particularly hard pressed with credits like that! I mean those two are just the cream of the crop outside of Charles S. Dutton, who steals the show no matter what he does anyway, and really, the rest of the cast is dull, uninteresting and just vastly underdeveloped.
That really goes back to the writing. I hate to harp on it, but that’s really the movie’s biggest flaw. It’s just so obviously not even trying, and that’s what’s so aggravating! All the main characters are built up in about 5 minutes, if that, and then the rest is basically this: “God’s pissed. He’s going to kill us with angels and we have to protect this woman to live, got it?” I’m sorry, and it isn’t that I’m a strong Christian or anything, but I frankly would be embarrassed to have a movie this bad closely associated with my faith.
This movie is dumb, redundant, bland, haphazardly written and just doesn’t make for a good time. I actually have a friend that loves bad movies like this for joking purposes, and HE was evening cursing the director’s name at the end. That just tells you how much of a miss this movie was. It missed the point completely, and honestly I can’t even call it a movie worth renting.

Gentlemen Broncos

You know what 2009 was really lacking to me? A hilarious comedy. I mean looking back on the last few years I feel every year had a comedy that just stuck with people. 2007 was all about "Super Bad", 2008 was "Tropic Thunder", but what was 2009? I guess you could say "The Hangover", but I'd like to briefly gloss over that one. And I can because this is my site. To me yes "The Hangover" was funny, I liked the story and it was nice to finally get a movie that actually made that tired catch phrase "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas," funny again. But honestly, I was a little underwhelmed, I liked it, but it wasn't very memorable to me. I just felt that while it was entertaining, a few of the jokes fell flat and it just seemed kind of forced in one or two places. That's why I was looking forward to "Gentlemen Broncos" after I saw the previews, I know I harped about previews in "Clash Of The Titans", but this was one that did it's job. It gave me an idea about the story of the film, it enticed me with a couple jokes, and that's all you need. "Titans" only had special effects going for it, and since they decided to show EVERYTHING in the previews, there really wasn't a point to go to the actual movie, unless you're a critic like me. I mean this movie's preview basically just had Sam Rockwell fighting with lawn ornaments on another planet! It's just silly enough to make me want to see it.
The plot is very basic. A young man writes Science Fiction stories, gets to meet his idol at a work shop, and his idol is an utter tool that promptly steals the boy's latest story as his own. And when I call this guy an utter tool, I mean that he's the most pretentious, vapid, idiotic, vain, unlikeable son of the unholy bitch of douche-dom and the bastard of dill holes. And he's my favorite character. I mean I hate him, but he's one of those guys you just love to hate. He never has anything even remotely redeemable about him, and he is just so hilarious.
It's actually a really good contrast to the protagonist. Who is actually not very talkative, and I think that actually helps the movie. He's supposed to be the meek, unimposing, and tends to just let people walk over him until the end of the movie. But really what makes this character great for me, is that even in his meekness, he still wants to stand up for his story since it was actually meant as something to honor his dead father, which by the way is never overtly said, just subtly implied. And really, that makes a strong character to me. It's honestly compelling to see this guy actually try for the stars at the end, challenging the well known writer with noting but the principle of the matter is just so aw inspiring to see.
That really has a lot to do with the film's point. I mean , comedies these days just always seem to be about tits and ass, but when you actually see a movie try to be funny without them, it's just amazing to see. This script is deep, shallow, smart and yet insanely stupid all at the same time. But what I really like, is that this film is big on the idea of "Show, don't tell!". Like I said, the story was for his father but in seriousness, he's mentioned only once verbally, and the rest of the time Ben just looks at his picture in a way that asks for guidance, and because of that this film actually becomes a coming of age story. However since they never beat you over the head with it, it becomes something new in that regard because, he doesn't need an outside influence, be it a mentor or a love interest or whatever, it's because he loves his father, gets frustrated that the story the really means something to him is being corrupted, and he reaches his breaking point. It's such a nice way to see a story. I have always loved seeing the hero triumph against the odds, but this is literally a film where it seems like everyone is against this guy, and yet he still wins.
Honestly if there is one kind of film that is hardest to review, it's a comedy. Mostly because I try and live off the principle that spoiling is usually wrong unless the person doesn't particularly want to see the film being reviewed, hence why my "Zombieland" review was so short, and because of this, I find comedies especially hard to talk about. It's mostly because they are usually short and I don't like giving too many of the jokes away, but since they make up a big part, I'll just say the jokes are well executed and very very funny.
That said, I just want to assure you that just because I'm not talking page after page about this movie, it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's silly, yet poignant in the right spots. Slow at times, but not dragging. And finally, this movie is just good. I mean really, this is from the guy that did "Napoleon Dynamite" a movie I just can't stand anymore, but "Broncos" I could honestly watch over and over and it'd still be funny, "Dynamite" was just like a one night stand; one big bang and done. Leaves something to be said for effort I guess.

Top 10 Movies You've Never Seen But Need To

In talking to a lot my friends I’m finding myself more and more interested in introducing them to movies that are very obscure, amazing, and sadly forgotten. To me, these are the best kinds of movies to find. They’re usually films that either didn’t get enough press in their release, they’ve been forgotten over the years, or any other reason. And yet when I do in fact find them, it’s like discovering gold. It’s a piece of cinema history that will always be preserved and viewed again and again, just because it was discovered by someone that found it in a video store and wanted to see it. So in order to honor these unknown treasures, I’m doing the thing all critics do at one point or another, a top 10 list. And without further adieu, here it is:

10. Martin. This is a film made by the zombie genre god George A. Romero, and it’s probably the most interesting vampire movie ever made. The film follows Martin, a disturbed young man that’s convinced he’s a vampire. He’s gone to live with a strongly religious cousin that also believe this, and wants to first give Martin his last rights and God’s forgiveness before killing him. That’s what we’re given in the first 15 minutes. This movie is just fascinating to watch, I’ll grant some of the writing gets a little too tedious in a couple places, but the performances and the characters are just superb and it makes you not mind. John Amplas is just so tragic as Martin because mostly this film comes down to a story of a man that has just given up on life and pretty much fully embodied an addiction, but slowly he starts to realize that he could be more, and have more than that. That and it just has some extraordinary suspense. I’m a big fan of George Romero, but I honestly think that this film here is probably one of his best works. It’s very moody and atmospheric and I just can’t recommend this movie enough.
9. Mean Streets. Martin Scorsese’s first big film, as well as the first time he collaborated with long time star Robert De Niro. A lot of people hold up “Goodfellas” as being Scorsese’s best film, and I agree, but to be honest I’d have to call this film a very very close second. It’s a similar premise, focusing mostly on small time gangsters that run a bar, but has it’s own identity and it just gets more and more interesting the film goes on. Harvey Keitel plays Charlie, a hood that is trying to make it on the streets. He seems he’d be able to do ok if it wasn’t for the fact that his girlfriend’s cousin Johnny Boy (De Niro) wasn’t such a lose cannon with a short temper. It’s hard to really explain what makes this movie great, but it’s certainly a must for anyone that enjoys Scorsese work as this is the first film where his truly unique style starts to shine through and is allowed to go nuts. And that, trust me, is well worth watching.
8. Idiocracy. This is a fairly recent movie and it seems to be gaining a bit of a cult following. So that’s why I put it pretty low on the list, but trust me, it still isn’t getting the attention it deserves and this is one of the most hilarious movies you’ll ever see. The plot is just ridiculous and yet at the same time it’s disturbing as hell. A guy that’s just completely average in every way is frozen as part of a super top secret military experiment, so secret in fact, that he is forgotten and sleeps for 500 years and comes out to find that the gene pool has stagnated and he’s now the smartest man on the planet. The jokes and set ups in this movie are just insanely funny, from the hospital called St. God’s, to the guy that constantly says brought to you by Carl’s Jr. all the time because they pay him to. This movie is just a hilariously original comedy with a unique premise and it certainly deserves a lot more attention than it gets.
7. The Sugarland Express. This movie marked the big screen debut of director Steven Spielberg and I think it is a shame no one has seen it. This movie is just jaw dropping it’s so good. Goldie Hawn plays a woman recently released from jail and finds out that she can’t get her infant son back from foster care. So she breaks her husband out too and through a series of events, they end up taking a state trooper hostage. Basically this movie becomes one great big chase as they try to make it to Sugarland Texas to reclaim their son. The photography is just beautiful and the sight of the enormous about of cars that follow them is something to behold. The characters are will played and the film’s script is just so packed with emotion, from happiness, to anger, to utter sadness. The scene where Hawn’s father gets on the radio and talks of being very disappointed in her, and that if the cops would give him a gun he’d shoot her himself is especially heartbreaking. This is probably up there in Spielberg’s films for me, because it really showcases that he really knows how to make a great movie and that he can give us characters that we all latch onto.
6. Slaughter House Five. Adapted very faithfully from the Kurt Vonnegut’s novel of the same name, this film is just hypnotic. It’s a film where I see not performances at all, but people. All the actors in this movie play their parts so believably that the line between actor and character is amazingly blurred. The camera paints the landscapes just beautifully and adds a nice glow to the whole experience. The music in it is simple but extremely effective, giving a child like innocence that contrasts with the film’s story greatly. To top that off, in my opinion this is the best adaptation of a novel ever done. The story is faithfully recreated and I feel that the novel’s unique voice is always present throughout. I can’t say enough about this movie, it’s a forgotten classic for sure, and to me, one of the finest films ever created.
5. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. I like to think of this as the last truly great family film. Terry Gilliam’s imagination seems to be endless as this movie takes us to so many elaborate and surreal locations that it is just such a treat to watch. People have sometimes asked me why I can get so worked up about kids movies these days and all I can say is that I’m tired of films that talk down to children, or are just so silly that they don’t allow kids a chance to try and think and understand what’s happening. This movie doesn’t, in fact most of the kid’s films from the 80’s actually stand up remarkably well today if you ask me. But my personal favorite is this film. Mostly because I was actually 17 when I first saw it and it filled me with such a childlike fascination that I couldn’t believe it. It’s the story of a man, the titular Baron, that has a life of fantastical stories and no one actually believes that they are the truth. John Neville is just amazing as the Baron and it’s odd when I see him in other films because he’s usually very down played and morose, but here he’s full of energy and just goes with the tone of the film so perfectly. The story is set in what is referred to as the Age of Reason, and there is a war going on between an English settlement and a Turkish Sultan. Jonathan Price plays a slimy government official that is trying to run the war “sensibly”, saying that it should be by the books and logically. He even goes to the point of having a man that committed a huge act of bravery and heroism executed because it may make the other soldiers feel inadequate. I’m not kidding about that. When a young girl’s family is threatened by Price with eviction from the city, the Baron comes to the rescue. The rest of the film is the Baron’s effort to save the settlement by finding his friends with amazing abilities and includes a trip to the moon, a visit with the gods Vulcan and Venus, being eaten by a sea monster and an enormously creative and hilarious final battle with the Sultan’s army at the film’s climax. It’s just so charming, but dark at times, and asks people to live their dreams. Something I feel most films these days are sadly lacking.
4. Straw Dogs. I’ve only seen this film about 3 times, and I’ll admit the first time I saw it I wasn’t all that impressed. However I was tempted and curious to give it another look and this time I was stunned. Sometimes it takes a couple viewings for a film to really grow on you I guess. I think part of it had to do with the film’s portrayal of the characters, very few of them have redeeming qualities about them. But watching it again I realized that was director Sam Peckinpah’s point. Peckinpah wanted to show that at our core, we’re all capable of violence. A mathematician and his wife move to a quiet English village, and immediately you get this undertone of the husband being intimidated by the men of the village. He can’t stand up to them at all and because of this, the men don’t respect him and decide that they can do whatever they want, including rape his wife. The film is brutal and has a very dark picture of humanity, never at any point compromising on this idea. The film climaxes with the husband finally reaching his breaking point and violently lashing back that those who wronged him as they try and invade his house to murder a man. I had a tough time wanting to put this movie on this list, but I feel the film is so powerful that it should be remembered because to me, it has a very important significance to film and the way it portrays violence, because it’s not pretty and this film really shows us that.
3. Spellbound. One of my favorite Alfred Hitchcock films, “Spellbound” has an intriguing mystery story, great performances from Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman, a great score and one of my all time favorite scenes in film. It was hard to pick between this and Hitchcock’s “Lifeboat” because I see both as phenomenal films. However, I tip the scales toward “Spellbound” for a couple major reasons. First of all it was one of the first films to seriously incorporate Psychology into a mystery plot, something that’s common place now. Bergman Plays a psychiatrist that’s trying to help discover what’s happened to a doctor that Gregory Peck was seeing and has mysteriously disappeared. Peck has a guilt complex though and is almost certain that he’s the murderer and the mystery is trying to figure out if he did or not. Great suspense is achieved as he has a psychological trigger that puts him almost in a trance and you’re not really sure if he’s going to be violent or if it’s due to a trauma. But the real thing that sets this film apart, the dream sequence. The crucial turning point in the mystery is a dream sequence in which Peck is put under hypnosis and we see one of the most amazing things put on film; a collaboration between Salvador Dali and Alfred Hitchcock. The visuals in this scene are just stunning and I can’t say anything about them that actually does justice, you just need to see it. All these elements combine to be all together great film.
2. Kingdom Of Heaven: The Director’s Cut. This movie met with mixed reviews on its release in 2005 and I can’t say that I really blame it, the theatrical cut made little sense, and was a pretty mediocre movie. However shortly after its DVD release Ridley Scott’s director’s cut also saw its way to DVD. And boy is this a completely different film. All the big problems I had with the theatrical version are gone, and this version of the movie likens back to epics of the 60’s like “Lawrence Of Arabia” or “Doctor Zhivago”. What I also liked was while this is about the holy wars between the Muslims and Christians during the Crusades; it has a lot of chivalry between them. It’s nicely ambiguous because both sides are played fairly sympathetically and the villains are really just men that are drunk with power. Edward Norton gives a wonderful uncredited performance as the leper king Baldwin not to mention the rest of the ensemble cast of characters is diverse, well rounded and stunningly performed. Every time I see this version of the film I remember what makes Ridley Scott a great film maker because he really has a talent for immersing you in the world of the film. The cinematography is just gorgeous and it’s pace never really drags, things are always happening but the audience is never left behind. I’d really love to see this version get a theatrical release because no matter how good or large your home TV is, this is something truly epic in every sense of the word and it really should be seen on the big screen.
1. Cool Hand Luke. This movie is just perfect. I mean perfect. What I think makes this movie earn number one is that I see it for sale everywhere, but it seems almost no one I talk to has ever seen it or remembers it. I can’t tell you how sad that makes me because this movie is just amazing. It follow a man named Luke who has been arrested for cutting the head off parking meters and how his presence in the chain gang he’s sent to changes everything and ultimately leads to his down fall as authority tries to squash him out. It’s got the best photography I’ve ever seen, Paul Newman and cast mesmerize you with their performances, and every time I see it, it hooks me in from the first frame. I could see this movie a thousand times and still rave about it. What surprises me most about it though is that it’s almost never mentioned in any film books. There are some passing mentions about Conrad Hall’s photography, but never anything about the direction or anything else like that makes this movie great. I feel that even though there are people out there that love this film about a man that goes to a chain gang and inspires the prisoners to try and make their lives better, it’s not given the attention that it rightly deserves. This film is just stunning and I shall not rest until it’s considered on the same level as films like “The Godfather” and “Casablanca”, because if any movie deserves to be in that category, it’s this one.

Clash of the Titans

Ok, this was inevitable; I have to make a comment on the remake plague going through the cinema. I’ve tried to avoid this because really, every single critic out there has commented and most have said that it is just freaking stupid to do nothing but constantly remake things. It’s just a sure fire way to piss off movie buffs, damage the name of a classic, and make studios lots of money. Yes, the reason these remakes are constantly being made, is they make money. And that means that I can finally say this. God it’s nice to finally have my chance to say this. Ok, here we go:


FUCK YOU ALL!!!

Yes! I blame you! I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard people complain that these remakes always suck but they still fucking go! Stop it! If you stop going, they’ll stop getting made! And while I’m at it, fuck you Michael Bay! I love all those old horror movies and you just keep raping them! Stop it you talentless hack! Phew… ok, I feel better now.
So yeah, “Clash of the Titans”… Or as I like to call it, proof nothing is sacred in Hollywood. Those who don’t know, “Clash of the Titans” was a movie made in the early 80’s that featured some very amazing stop motion effects by Ray Harryhausen. It was cheesy at times, but a lot of fun to watch. So I must confess, that of all the remakes recently, this was one that I actually wasn’t dreading from the get go. It’s an effects movie, all you had to do was something really similar with updated effects and you’d be fine. Did they do that? Not really. In fact, the movie isn't really terrible, it's just so terribly written that anything that happens just seems like ok, that's cool I guess.
The basic plot is the same, it has to do with the Krakken about to destroy the city unless the princess Andromeda is sacrificed, they need the head of Medusa to stop it and save the princess, and the only person able to do it is the demigod Perseus. The problem really was, on re-watching the original, I liked all the people in the movie and really had an interest in seeing what would happen. This movie, well, I’ll just call it “Clash of the Titans” for dummies. Characters are dropped and those that remain are really uninteresting, the plot is overly simplified, and really it hurts the movie immensely, mostly because in the original Andromeda was Perseus's bride so there was more a sense of urgency to keep her from being fed to the Krakken, not the case here. Sad because for what they have as "characters", the actors are all pretty good, no one feels like they are over doing it or being silly, although Liam Neeson seems to be phoning it in at times. To be honest though, Liam Neeson is so good that even when he’s phoning it in it’s pretty damn cool. Still they don't do much, they just say stuff that sounds like it was meant for a trailer or i guess was supposed to be epic sounding, but it's just silly.
The biggest character problem? Perseus, or if you've ever played any of the "God of War" games, the clearly watered down Kratos clone. It's quite shameless actually. He wants to prove to the gods that men can stand up to them and fight them. They give him gifts that he keeps turning down, but ultimately uses, He whines about how Hades killed his family and how he disowns his father Zeus and blah blah blah. Really in looking back at the plot of this movie if you changed the Hades to Aries, this is would almost be a really bad "God of War" movie and it's all due to how they portray Perseus.
However, The effects are spectacular. I’m not kidding they are really really good. My favorite effect though was Carion, the ferry man because of one thing: he’s the only creature that is actually on set. Yes, a giant CGI extravaganza has a puppet in it! And damn it’s a cool puppet! The Krakken is well rendered and looks pretty damn cool. Same with the giant scorpions that you see in all of the previews. But really that’s another of the problems. This movie is only about an hour and forty minutes (10 minutes of which I’m sure are padded by the credits) and the previews show all the stuff that would make this movie cool. That is probably one of, if not the dumbest thing that you can do in a movie preview. You’re supposed to interest us in wanting to see more, if you just show us everything then what’s the fucking point of going to the movie?
Really the thing that killed the movie was the characters and the writing. The pace was far far too rushed, this whole movie is building up epic stuff that is over far too soon, from the fight with Medusa, to the end battle with the Krakken and Hades. This whole movie just seems bored with itself and just wants to end. Plus the characters are just nonexistent. I don’t think any of them stood out other than Perseus, Hades, Zeus, Io and that guy that was the bad guy in “Casino Royale” (I can't even remember that character's name). But really saying they even stood out is being pretty nice. This movie was about the effects and that’s it. I’m hip to that if there’s actually something cool to look at but there is nothing new or interesting here. Thus far this is biggest disappointment of the year, it was a movie that didn’t need a compelling story or anything. It just needed to be exciting and fun, and it wasn’t. It was just bland and mediocre at best and I highly recommend either skipping it all together or waiting for DVD. I mean, they had the fucking nads to throw in the Bubo prop from the first movie, and then not actually use Bubo! Come on! The mechanical owl was so awesome and funny in the first movie and that’s what was needed here! At least I would have cared if the owl version of R2D2 got crushed by the Krakken!

Boondock Saint 2: All Saint's Day

Well kids, it’s sequel time again! And guess what? I give up. I have to. There is nothing left these last few years that really makes me feel that the action genre has anything going for it anymore, and I’m extremely sad about that. I mean it’s always been a larger ratio of crap to anything actually good, but now the numbers have just gotten worse. Right off the bat I’m going to have to say this, I know this review is going to get me a lot of negative feed back, but facts are facts people and the fact is that I never really cared for “The Boondock Saints”. I didn’t hate it, I just didn’t find it that interesting, well more I didn’t find it good or interesting after a second viewing. A lot of the jokes fell flat even the first time, the action sequences were mostly ripped off and dull, and really, the whole movie was just mediocre, but I did get some enjoyment out of it. It had Willem Defoe and that alone usually makes things a lot of fun with some nicely over the top moments. I seem to be a little bit in a minority on this one however. A lot of people loves this movie like it’s “Pulp Fiction” or “Reservoir Dogs” but I really just found it forgettable. Yet it was still popular enough that 10 years later, we got a sequel, from the same writer and director, who hasn’t done anything else in the meantime, at all.
And what do we get for our 10 year wait? Is it a new, totally different story that fleshes out the characters and adds new drama? Nope, it’s the same movie. It really gets me worried when a man that has only directed one movie, comes back with a sequel that is the same movie again with only the slightest of differences. It really just emphasizes the fact that this guy only has one story in him, and it is really reflected in the script for this movie. The plot is the Saints have to return to American after hiding out in Ireland, to avenge a priest that is murdered by a hit man hired by the son of the gangster that they executed at the end of the first movie (sorry for the spoiler, but it was unavoidable). The rest is the exact same situations as the first film! Any of the writing gripes I had with the first movie, I could usually forgive, it was Troy Duffy’s first movie and in my opinion, when it’s your first movie you can get some leeway. Here is just a pure example of absolutely no effort at all. The dialogue is trying way too hard to be like early Quentin Tarantino, the big plot points happen at exactly the same time in this as they do in the original, and to top it all there is a character that was killed off in the original that is just replaced here. I’m not even kidding. They just get a guy, played by a different actor, to do exactly the same part from the first movie. Words really escape me here. I’ve complained about sequels just being carbon copies like the “Final Destination” sequels, but at least they tried a whole new cast when they re-did those movies, here it just brings more attention to the fact that they had no new ideas.
That and the performances are just ridiculous. The returning cast has no real endearing factors to me really. The Saints, Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flannery respectively, are just annoying and really, in this movie they are quite unsympathetic. In the first film, I will admit that I felt all their actions were pretty much justified. They legitimately took down bad people. In this movie, really no one they kill is seen doing anything that is plainly cruel or evil, other than wanting to kill them for killing someone else. So it just feels like the Saints are just killing people that are just marginally associated with the gangsters, mostly because that’s all they kill until the end where they actually do what they should have done the whole movie instead of getting drunk. Plus, did I mention they were annoying? They get drunk and make fun of people for like two thirds of the movie! Fine, I’ll buy that, I’ll get past that. What grinds my nerves is when they just seem to do that more than hunt down criminals, which they are constantly saying is their whole mission and purpose. Seriously, if you want a story about Anti-heroes you can’t just have them do nothing and then have them kill people and expect the audience to be rooting for them, they have to be killing people that are pretty much filth.
The Saint aren’t my biggest bone to pick with this movie though, that dubious honor goes to none other than “Dexter” leading lady Julie Benz, who plays the replacement Willem Dafoe here, and is just so grating that I can’t adequately find words to describe it. She is so balls achingly irritating that I had to stop the movie a couple times to do something other than watch her keep going. The odd thing? I love her on that show! Seriously she is so much better than this part! I’m sure she did it for career purposes or she was a fan of the original, but that honestly doesn’t excuse it. She is just a clone of the same exact part, she’s just trying to do the same character from the first movie. Right down to the re-enactments and banter with the local cops, it’s the same goddamn person! And I haven’t even started with the clone of the Mexican guy. I don’t even feel like giving him much mention, mostly because I think the actor that plays him is just going through the motions because he’s clearly aware that his part only exists to replace the guy from the first movie. All these people are just fucking pointless!
Then there are the action sequences, oh god if you could only call them that. This movie’s idea of action is mostly just guns going off. That’s all you really see. There’s no actually movement, or anything else to give the scene depth or excitement, not even shaky cam and god did I never think I’d actually wish for that. Troy Duffy just seems to think a gun going off is enough. You know what? I could almost buy this, the idea that something as simple as pulling a trigger on a gun and being able to actually end someone’s life is very intimidating. The problem is the rest of the movie seems to celebrate the idea of killing people with the cover of the Saints’ actions being “noble”, and the slight over the top nature of the violence just totally ruins any chance of that idea. Which is huge shame because they actually try to build that idea up through out, mostly in useless flashbacks from the father character, I guess feeling remorseful about the fact he’s killed so many people. But in the next scene we see the Saints killing people and it’s supposed to be cool and the message is just destroyed. The hypocrisy and constant shifts between timelines, slow and fast motion, ultimately makes these scenes just boring.
And that’s basically this movie in a nut shell, it’s just boring. It goes nowhere, it takes way too long to get there, and on top of that, it’s been done before. Basically I should have just watched the first movie again, maybe really drunk or high and I probably would have liked it more than seeing this “new” movie. It’s a dull, run of the mill sequel that really should never have been made, and it pains me to know that I wasted two hours of my life just sitting through it.

Repo! The Genetic Opera

Ok, I’ve been asked a few times what I think about musicals, here’s what I have to say: I love them when they’re good, and I despise them when they are bad. I have no middle ground for these kinds of films really. I can’t call them ok, they are either great or they suck on massive levels. However, there is in fact one sub genre of them that I just love, I have yet to find one that I didn’t like and that is the rock opera. From “Tommy” to “Pink Floyd The Wall” to…. Well that’s all I can honestly say I’ve seen or for that matter remember off the top of my head. But, there is in fact one more that I’ve seen, and it is hands down my favorite of this sub genre: “Repo! The Genetic Opera”. This is going to be a bit of a rarity in that this is one of the few movies that I’ve seen several times before reviewing it.
“Repo!” is the first movie that director Darren Lynn Bousman made outside of the “Saw” series, and damn is it good, well I think it is anyway. I said in my “Book of Eli” review that it was a movie that would probably be either loved or hated and really I think “Repo!” is very much the same way. It’s down to your taste in movies and music really. It’s plot will probably show you why, in the future, there is an epidemic of organ failures. Out of the need for new organs comes the company Geneco, an organization that will save the lives of those needing new organs…. For a price, and those that can’t pay, a repo man is sent to harvest their credited organs. I’ve described this film as something Tim Burton and Trent Reznor would come up with after tripping shooms, and I stand by that. It’s got Tim Burton-esque style yet the music isn’t the typical Danny Elfman, “Nightmare Before Christmas” type stuff, it’s more hard rock industrial like, well, Nine Inch Nails.
But that’s not a bad thing, I actually like this mix a lot. The songs are catchy and fun to sing a long with, hum later and all that stuff. On top of that though, they actually feel like opera numbers, all the dialogue is sung actually. It’s a very bold choice, always has been. I think that’s why I have a lot of love for rock operas, they take what makes an opera, but choose to use modern style music. It’s a bold artistic risk, and I have to say damn I’m glad there are musicians that take those kinds of chances, because when they do, it’s usually something they work very hard on and the effort shines though in the music.
However, there is a couple of problems when it came to the casting, though it’s not something that pisses me off or anything, it’s just that Bill Mosley (“The Devil’s Rejects”) and Paul Sorvino (“Goodfellas”) can’t really sing. Mostly they just speak their lyrics in something that resembles rhythm, a bit unfortunate yet I don’t mind. The performances actually add a lot the songs, from all the actors and that includes Paris Hilton. Yes, I said it. Paris Hilton acted in a movie and didn’t piss me off. She actually does have a descent voice and well, her character is a spoiled heiress, it’s not like she really needs to act that much. But the show stealers are hands down Alexa Vega who has come a very long way from her days as a Spy Kid, and who’d have guessed, but she really knows how to sing. Here she’s a troubled, sheltered teen that has been confined to her home due to a blood disease, and she longs to see the world and meet her hero, Blind Mag, the voice of Geneco and the other performance that steals the show. Played by famous soprano singer Sarah Brightman, Mag is a character that I think has the least amount of screen time of anyone that plays a big part in the story, but she has such a great voice, and really her character is a turning point for several people involved. She’s Vega’s hero, her father’s (the repo man) latest assignment, and she’s planning on leaving Geneco, a major plot point. And yet I think she has maybe 10 minutes of screen time tops in this movie. The rest of the cast does a nice job, just isn’t quite as memorable. Well, except maybe Ogre as Pavi Largo, but I think that’s more to do with the design of the character.
The film’s design is also amazing. The photography is just great, I love its vivid colors and kinetic energy really set the mood the film is trying to create. Plus I love how the sets do the best they can with a clearly small budget, it actually feels like this is just being filmed on a very elaborate theater set, giving it an other worldly feel. Very little choreography, but what little there is makes a great impression. I really feel that this is what Darren Lynn Bousman can do well. The images are surreal and it was something that he had put in his installments of the “Saw” franchise, but here it gets to come full circle. I like getting to see this director finally break away from that tiresome franchise, here we really get to see what he’s capable of, and he shows a lot of promise.
Overall, this is a pretty damn good movie. It’s got great music, an interesting story (sadly ripped off for that stupid action movie with Jude Law.), and it’s just well made. It’s just sad how many people don’t know about this movie, and I think that’s sadly due to the fact that it seems if you’re doing a musical these days, you better be doing something like “Chicago”, because if you’re not some big successful jazz based musical, no one really seems to care. And that’s a damn shame if you ask me, because this is a fine example that something other than jazz can make a good musical, and I’d like to see more of them.

Where the Wild Things Are

Ah, finally! I get to actually review something big. Something with a ton of back story to me. Something that I have such a personal connection to, that I was extremely critical of anything that could have come of it. Yes I like many many people, grew up with the gloriousness that was Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are”. It was a fun little story with creative monsters. I loved book and read it all the time, well into middle school in fact. Back the fuck off if you want to judge that I read a kid’s book that long, it was just good. To be honest though children’s media, when well done, really holds up when you’re an adult too. I love going back to look at things like “The Sandlot”, or “The Never-ending Story” and the almighty “E. T. The Extra Terrestrial” and “The Goonies” because of one big reason that I’m sure you already know, THEY’RE GOOD!!!
Thus I come to the film version of this story. I was as skeptical as you probably are if you haven’t seen this movie. The original story was very short. Here’s the brief summary of the book. Max is a rowdy kid. He gets in trouble with his mom one night, and she sends him to bed with no dinner. While in his room, Max goes in to an imagery world that he navigates through in a boat and comes to the titular Wild Things. They are a bunch of big monster looking things and Max becomes their king. However, Max gets bored after awhile and heads home much to the dismay of the Wild Things. When he finally gets home he finds that his mother has left him dinner in his room, and it’s still warm. It’s a sweet and charming story, meaning making a good movie out of it is near impossible.
So, how is such a feat to be achieved? Well, you simply need to watch this movie and you have your answer. It’s a great film that keeps the heart and story of the original material but adds a lot great things! Things that most movies these days lack like: character and plot and great design.
The story is mostly the same, but they add some changes. Max is not so much rowdy as troubled. He’s at the point where he’s feeling alone, his sister is off with her friends all the time, his mother still loves and cares for him, but she has her own life too. It comes to a head when he gets the feeling that his mother doesn’t really seem to want to pay attention to him when he’s feeling lonely and so he puts on his wolf costume (another nod to the source material) and throws a fit that ends in him biting her and running away to the woods. There he finds a boat and goes to the land of the Wild Things. He becomes their king and tries to rule in such away that everyone is happy and always having fun. Slowly though, he realizes that his selfishness is actually hurting the Wild Things, and ultimately decides that he has to go back home.
Now, really this is one of those things that may sound silly to some, but really this is a movie that is based on a picture book, if you have shit design you have fucked the movie, plan and simple. Thankfully it’s like I said, the design is just perfect. Most of the Wild Things look like they walked out of the book, mainly because, well, they’re actually in front of the camera. I said in my “Sorority Row” review that I’m not too hot on 100% CGI, mostly this comes from the fact that many CGI movies just look fake. I mean, they look cool, but I can tell I’m looking at an effect and it really detracts from the movies most of time unless we’re talking about things “King Kong ‘05”, or the “Pirates of The Caribbean” films. Thankfully, this movie chose to make the Wild Things with the help of the studio that is God when it comes to suits and puppets, The Jim Henson Work Shop. Before anyone points out the CG in the movie, I’m aware, the facial movements are CG. I don’t care because the rest of the creature is actually there. The CG is there to add fluidity that can’t be achieved by animatronics, THAT’S HOW IT’S SUPPOSED TO FUCKING WORK! On top of this, the sets look amazing and really give you a sense of being in another world. It really feels like you’re there.
On top of that, the acting talent is just stunning. Max Records is just amazing as Max here. He just perfectly gathers all the anguish, anger, happiness and well nearly every other emotion I can think of for this character, and he’s only 12! People made a big deal about Haley Joel Osment in “The Sixth Sense” or Keisha Castle-Hughes in “Whale Rider”, and they did very well in those roles, but really I didn’t see anything worthy of the Oscar nominations they received. With Records, I saw a child performance that was seriously over looked. Catherine Keener does great as the mother, being supportive but having her limits and getting frustrated by her son’s behavior. Honestly, what steals the show is the Wild Things themselves, not just because of the design, but seriously the voices are what seal the deal for me. All the talent from Catherine O’ Hara to Chris Cooper to Tony Soprano himself James Gandolfini creates their own characters beautifully. They all have their own personality traits and quirks. It’s different from what you thought would come from the story because all these character are poignant, well rounded and oh so likable.
You know what, I could give this movie a verbal blow job for fucking hours and still not come close to truly describing how good it is. It’s hard to describe so here’s what happens now: You are going to close this window. You will then go to a torrent site or your video store of choice. You will rent or download the movie. And most importantly of all, FUCKING WATCH IT!