Guts Spill

Top 10 Films of 2011

2011-12-27T00:08:00.010-05:00

2011, much like last year, was very tame and not all too exciting. Like every year, there’s disappointments, and there’s pleasant surprises. Was Super 8 as good as I hoped it was? No. Was Shark Night 3D the stupid fun I hoped it was? No, it was a boring turd. Does a GOOD Captain America film exist now? Yeah! Is it possible for a GOOD horror film after 1995 to exist? Yes! I didn’t think I could even compile a list of 10 for 2011, but once I really thought about it, it was feasible.

1. The Beaver

The Beaver is one of those films where I don’t think could work without the talent involved. And by talent, I mean, Mel Gibson. Don’t get me wrong, Jodie Foster did a great job, in terms of direction. It’s just that Gibson steals each and every scene. And really invested himself into the role. Though, many would say it didn’t take a whole lot for him to portray an insane schizophrenic. I am one of those people. Let’s face it. No one does crazy like Mel. THE BEAVER REVIEW

2. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

Here’s a film that was EXACTLY what I wanted, and delivered on the level that I wanted it to. The Beaver exceeded my expectations. But it wasn’t exactly what I thought it was going to be (and that’s partially due to the original score [hey, music can alter a film drastically]). Not saying I didn’t love the score. It’s just that it really altered what I was expecting. With M:I 4, it delivered exactly what I expected. A sleek, high-octane, stunt-spectacular train of a film. Once it starts, it never lets up, and I couldn’t ask for more. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL REVIEW

3.The Muppets

Here’s one of the many films that really surprised me! For a franchise that has laid dormant for over a decade, they delivered one helluva film. There is so much to love about The Muppets. The characters, the jokes, the music, the zaniness, everything! First of all, the film is self-aware of the declined interest in the franchise. It pretty much serves a “Blues-Brothers-getting-the-band-back-together” entry into the franchise. And I have absolutely no problem with that. And make no mistake, this is not a “kids movie”. Yes, it’s for kids, but its for adults too. It’s the quintessential family film. And to be a family film, you have to have jokes and themes for everyone. For instance, in the film, there’s a character called “80’s Robot”. His job is to pretty much make the teens and adults laugh. From references to montages to dial-up internet connections. That’s all stuff that goes over the head of a 10, 11, or 12 year-old. And then there’s of course corny jokes for the kids that still makes you laugh. It all works. Maybe the only thing hurting the film is it’s run-time? But that would be my only gripe if I had to have one. And I don’t have to have one. So, rather than me back-spacing, just forget I typed that.

4. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Unlike most “remakes” (I quote that for a reason, but Ill get to that in a second), I have usually seen the original first. That is not the case with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. And I kind of wanted it that way. Look, it’s David Fincher. And unlike many directors working today, his worst is usually better than most director’s best. But with his adaptation of Dragon Tattoo, I knew he was going to work closer from the book than the original Swedish film. And that leads me back to the whole argument as to whether or not it’s a remake. For me, if you make a film based off of an original movie, THAT is a remake. But if you make a film derived directly from the source material (I.E. novel), then that is simply just another adaptation. And having finally watched the Swedish version, I can honestly say I like Fincher’s adaptation more. I think his film is a darker, colder and a better photographed film. Many people have been complaining about it not having enough personal touches. But I disagree. It doesn’t require any personal touches. This isn’t a complicated love story. It’s an eerie murder mystery with a dash of romance. And the amount of human emotion thrown into the film is enough. Enough to actually give two fucks about the two main characters, but not to the point where it gets sappy.

And like I said, this film is shot beautifully. Some scenes make you feel cold, some scenes give you the creeps, and some are just downright raw. And a lot of that is due to the colors and camera placement. If you’re reading this, you probably already know there is a rape scene. And while many directors would have the camera shaking to build on the tension already happening, Fincher knows when a scene’s content is enough to make you feel uncomfortable.

5. Puss In Boots

Okay, Im a cat person. And I know I’m destined to grow up to be a crazy cat lady. And that might be 50% of the reason why I love Puss In Boots. The other 50%?... Well, more cat jokes. So I guess in actuality, this film is humor for the clinically insane. Dreamworks makes films for the clinically insane. That’s my review. And the 3D was fantastic. Fantastic 3D for the clinically insane.

6. Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Michael Bay. Robots. Robot-dick-punches. ‘Splosions. I think Ive got that covered HERE and HERE.

7. Rango

Rango is one of those films that is disguised as a “kids film”, but is really for adults. Really, this film is basically Chinatown. But replace Jack Nicholson with a lizard with a Hawaiian t-shirt. This is, I think maybe the best animated film of the year. Even though I think Puss In Boots might be better, the ANIMATION in this is incredible. This is ILM’s first foray into 100% CG-animation. And honestly, it looks better than Pixar. The direction Gore Verbinski went with this was great. When I say the animation looks real, I mean it looks photo-realistic. The designs of the characters are outrageous, yes, but the rendering of the textures look so damn real. But I wouldn’t expect less from Verbinski. Ive watched all the Pirates making-of doc’s, and he’s a hard ass when it comes to CG. And more directors need to be that way. But then again, not all directors were visual FX artists prior to directing.

8. Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark

You know, it’s surprises like Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark that restore my faith in horror for 3.6 seconds. I expected NOTHING from this film. But once I watched it, I was pleased to find out that it wasn’t a heaping pile of shit. It played like a classic gothic haunted house story. Except instead of ghosts, they’re disgusting rat-like asshole… Things. I know this is a remake of the 1970’s made-for-TV-movie (which I hear is damn good), but this one worked. It didn’t try to modernize the film too much. Enough to simply take place today. No distracting references to Facebook or any of that horse shit that is commonly popular in horror today. It just plays as a straight “what-goes-bump-in-the-dark” horror film. The creature designs are fucking creepy, the story is pretty interesting, and the score wasn’t too bad either. Had I been anticipating the film, I probably wouldn’t have been impressed with the film too much. But that’s what happens when you go into a film with no expectations.

9. Captain America: The First Avenger

Who would have thought Captain America would have actually been… Cool? Certainly not I. Im sorry, I always found the character to be incredibly corny. Even his name is ultra-hokey. But what Joe Johnston managed to do with the character worked, and because of that, the film exceeded my expectations. Joe Johnston is one of those directors I can respect because of his accolades. This guy has worked on Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I don’t know about you (nor do I care), but I could die happy having just been apart of those films. But Johnston has never been a very good DIRECTOR. Honey, I Shrunk The Kids was a fun film as a kid, Jurassic Park III was a mess, and The Wolfman… Well, I hear it was pretty much a dud. But with Captain America, he actually made a good film! And Im happy, because I knew he had it in him.

He managed to take a character I dislike, and make me like him. But I do have to say, there is one particular element that he injected into the film that was an easy “they’ll love this!”. And that’s Indiana Jones. Johnston doesn’t necessarily make makes nods to the Indy films, as much as he uses the overall tone in his film. And much like most superhero films, the villain in 50%. The Red Skull was awesome. I want to set the record straight. I hate Nazis, I think they’re scum, and simple-minded sub-humans, BUT… You throw an S.S. uniform on somebody, they instantly look badass. If it was socially acceptable to wear an S.S. uniform, Id wear one every day. The contrast of The Red Skull’s… Red skull, and his black leather S.S. uniform? You really cannot fucking beat it.

Is Captain America an amazing film? I don’t think so. But it definitely showcases Johnston’s ability to direct. Give him enough preparation time, a decent budget, faith, and artistic freedom… And you have a solid film.

10. Drive

Everyone loves The Big Lebowski, correct? Correct. Everyone is sick of hearing hipsters brag about their “The Dude Abides” shirts and their “Dude” sweaters, right? I know I am. Yes, I own a couple Lebowski shirts, and I really don’t get the urge to wear them too often because of the frameless hipster ass wipes. But I will not let them ruin the film for me. Because if they do, the terrorists win. The same will go for Drive.

Drive is a film that has already become a “cult classic”. I really enjoyed Drive (hence, why it’s on this fucking list). But I see people already wearing that white jacket with the yellow scorpion on the back. The same people incidentally have frameless glasses. Hmmm…

Drive really is a good film, and doesn’t deserve to be ruined via hipsters. The film is very simple and very minimalistic. It replaces action for contained ultra-violence, and has a sick sense of humor. I was really surprised at the level of ultra-violence there was. A scene would play, you’d sense “Oh, maybe this girl is going to die”. Okay, shot in the chest, scene over. Nope. Let’s have a shotgun headshot in slow-motion. You know, just so you can take in all the blood, brain & skull fragments at a slower rate. Is that anything new? No. I just thought it was rad because it wasn’t expected. I wasn’t expecting ultra-violence. Drive has a cool score, some damn good acting, and some awesome car chases.

And that was 2011 for me. That’s not to say there weren’t any other films I enjoyed. I thought The Skin I Live In was an bizarre and unique film. The Adventures of Tin Tin was enjoyable. Great animation, fun inebriated humor, and another Indiana Jones-esque film. Hugo was really good. Excellent film-making, great performances, the 3D was incredible, and what else? Oh! That’s right! It’s Martin Scorsese. So I guess the list would be shorter if I listed what DIDN’T work with Hugo. Cowboys & Aliens was a fun western/sci-fi fusion. X-Men: First Class and Rise of the Planet of the Apes were surprisingly good. And aside from the aforementioned films, most films were either A) a disappointment (Super 8) or B) Just irredeemable shit (Conan).

2012, please don’t let me down. Id like The Expendables 2, The Dark Knight Rises, Prometheus, The Avengers, and Bullet To The Head not to suck.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

2011-12-19T23:33:00.004-05:00

I’ll put it out there. Im not the biggest Mission: Impossible fan. I’v never caught an episode of the original television series. But I have seen all 3 films. But by the end of it, it’s a fairly decent action franchise. The first was okay. The second was a mess. And the third? Well, Id say the third was the best… Until now.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol manages to take the best aspects of its 3 predecessors, and even build on them. But what it doesn’t do, is it doesn’t depend on them, as many sequels tend to do. A hint here, a nod there, a reference over there. That isn’t to say it doesn’t bring back a couple characters, but it certainly does not rely on them.

First off, I want to address the director, Brad Bird. This is his first live action film. But that isn’t to say it’s his first film. Most people would know Bird from his animated films The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouillie. But what he does with M:I:4, I wonder… Why has Hollywood been hiding this guy behind a computer screen for all these years? Seriously, this his is freshman live action film, and it feels like a seasoned veteran directed this. And Im not even speaking in terms of the action in the film. Im talking the pacing, the humor, and hell, even the IMAX format.

You would think that you would be content with shooting in 35MM for your first live action film, test it out, then graduate to the fancier formats (3D, IMAX, etc.). Nope. Brad Bird managed to create an EXPERIENCE, and not just the fourth entry in an action franchise.

The film opens with Ethan Hunt in a Russian prison. Okay, this should be interesting. Obviously, the objective is to escape. What's he in there for? You find that out later. All that matters at this point is the “how”. How is Ethan Hunt going to get out of this mess? Well with the help of his team members at the IMF. Basically, it’s a very strong opening. All the jail cells are opened, Russian convicts litter the halls, destroy prison guards, its just chaos. So as Hunt is trying to escape, he has to fend off not only prison guards, but the inmates as well. And the use of music works really well too. The song is this Russian anathematic song playing over the loud-speakers. So not only is the action great, the choice of song is great. What else is thrown into the mix? Successful humor. Humor isn’t always successful in action films. In fact, it’s usually terrible. EVERYTHING works in this film.

The basic gist of the film is this: Ethan Hunt and his team are given another mission by the IMF. The mission? To track down the Russians who possess the launch codes to nuclear missiles. The catch is, they’re the only 4 left of the IMF. So… No back up. That is what makes this mission a little heavier. And I know what you’re thinking, “That plot seems a little thin”. Well here’s the thing, like with any espionage/spy film, there are always more twists and turns and subplots. And with a lot of espionage/action films, too much usually gets in the way. If you have a film that is predominately a spy/thriller/drama, the action can sometimes get in the way of the actual story. And if you have a film predominately action, complexity of story can sometimes get in the way of the action. Action doesn’t always have to be dumb, but it doesn’t always have to be “calculus-smart” either.

The action/story in M:I:4 is, in my opinion, perfect. There was nothing in terms of story that had me scratching my head saying, “Really? That’s all there is to it?”. It just suites the action perfect. Because in the end, the M:I films are ACTION films. M:I:4 is set piece after set piece after set piece. And it manages to pace it at a rate where you can breath between, take in all the information you need to follow the story as it progresses, and brace yourself for the next action scene. And the action is shot perfectly. Geographically, you know where you are in each scene. There are very few shaky-cam shots. Shaky-cam, people forget, is something that is unavoidable in an action film. Whether its used for 5% of the film, or 80% of the film, it’s in practically everything you watch. Its just less noticeable in certain movies. And M:I:4 is one of those movies.

Speaking of shots, lets talk about IMAX. Brad Bird has gone on record by saying that 25-30 minutes of the film was shot in IMAX. And all of it looks fantastic. There was one issue I had going in that I hoped was going to be addressed and corrected. And that was the aspect ratio change. And it was indeed corrected. I didn’t see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen in IMAX, but I heard there was a major issue involving the constant switch-over from 35MM to 70MM in a single scene. With Ghost Protocol, there is no issue. Once the IMAX-shot sequence begins, it consistently fills the screen until the scene is over. So if there is a close-up dialogue cut, it’s shot in IMAX, and doesn’t subtract the scope of the scene. And I love the transition from 35MM to 70MM back to 35. Its edited in a way in which it feels as if a top and bottom curtain are being lifted to expose the whole picture. As opposed to just cutting to the IMAX-shot sequence harshly.

Every IMAX sequence is great. But the one that is the most impressive is indeed that climbing of the Burj Khalifa. You know, the one that they’ve used in ALL the marketing. And for good reason! Its fucking INCREDIBLE! Not only is it the greatest sequence in any of the Mission: Impossible films, but it’s one of the best sequences in any action film in the past 10 or 15 years. There are so many damn elements that make that scene work so fucking well. Ill just list ‘em as I go. First off: Tom Cruise. The fact that this man (who doesn’t need the money, mind you) was willing to climb the world’s tallest building (a half a mile high), without a stunt man, is just incredible. I wish I could buy the guy a shot right now. And it’s one thing to just go out on a harness 2700 feet in the air. But it’s another thing to run down the building, run across the building, and plunge yourself from one side to the other. Secondly, the scope of IMAX. As you watch Tom Cruise hanging onto the side of the building, you actually feel as if you’re going to fall into the screen. Granted, this film isn’t in 3D, but it sure as hell pulls you in. And when Cruise slips and falls, your stomach drops with him. Thirdly, the score really enhances the scene’s energy. When the main Mission: Impossible theme enters, you get goosebumps. Maybe you wont, but I did. I get ‘em just thinking about it. And as if the scene wasn’t dangerous enough, along with the height, he also has to fear the dreadful sandstorm heading his way. The scene is just perfect. And that’s only the half-way point of the movie. There are still even 3 of 4 more action sequences after that!

The rest of the film, I don’t feel I should even write about due to the fact that the studio doesn’t really reveal too much of it in the ads and trailers. Which is great! For once, you can go into a movie and actually see something you DIDN’T see in the trailer. For the most part, the TV spots and trailers showed you most of the action sequences from Moscow and Dubai. For the last quarter of the film they go to India, and what happens? Well, watch the fucking movie.

The team. You have Benji, the computer-tech. Jane, the female agent. And Brandt, the new guy/secret commando. And of course, Ethan Hunt. And surprisingly enough, it’s a very strong team. Benji obviously serves as most of the comic relief for the film. And for the most part, he is hilarious. Jane was pretty badass in the was that wasn’t too forced. I mean, she did kick a girl’s ass, then knock her out a window. That’s pretty rad. And with Brandt, you might think this is a spoiler, but it’s not. They reveal it in the trailer. Brant APPEARS to be just an analyst from D.C., but as the story progresses, it’s revealed that he’s a soldier who can hand your ass to you. So that made for an interesting touch. But what makes it so interesting is that, for once in the M:I franchise, someone who isn’t who they say they are is actually GOOD. Usually the guy who you thought was good, was playing for the other team. The one thing that I DON’T like about Brandt actually has nothing to do with his character. It’s the direction they want to go in the next installments of the franchise. From what I heard, Jeremy Renner (who plays Brandt) is supposedly going to be passed the torch from Tom Cruise to be the new leading man in the M:I films. Hey, I liked his character in Ghost Protocol, but Mission: Impossible is Cruise’s franchise. This isn’t Bond.

All in all, Brad Bird, Tom Cruise, producer J. J. Abrams, and the rest of the crew did one helluva job on this film! Its amazing that the fourth film in a series can surpass its predecessors ten-fold almost 17 years after the initial film. But this only makes me wonder, how can you top Ghost Protocol? The Burj Khalifa scene alone is hard to top! We’ll see. If this is Brad Bird’s FIRST live action film, what the hell is he going to do next?!

Really though, see it in IMAX. Or fuck off.

The Thing

2011-10-16T02:04:00.008-04:00

1938 brought us the short story "Who Goes There?". 1951 brought us Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World. 1982 brought us John Carpenter's The Thing. And 2011 brings us Not John Carpenter's The Thing. Okay, maybe it's really Matthijs van Heijningen's The Thing, but Im not so sure he'd really want to put his name on this film.

I, like almost everyone else, LOVE John Carpenter's The Thing. It's one of my absolute favorite films of all time. And certainly Carpenter's best or second best. And anytime you're going to do a prequel to a film that is adored, you're doomed to fail. And I, UNLIKE everyone else, was willing to not necessarily be optimistic about it, but at least NOT be pessimistic, if that makes sense. I want to give a brief history of this project. At first, it was supposed to be remake of Carpenter's remake. Some people might say that is still the case, but only disguised as a prequel. And that's not the case. But Ill get into that later. The director thought it should be a direct prequel of Carpenter's The Thing. Okay, that's kind of respectable. What isnt, is the final product...

The film starts off kind of strong. It introduces potentially likeable characters. It has the big reveal of the spaceship, and has an actual pretty cool title. There were some things that were going to help make or break this film for me. And one of those things was the title. The reveal in the '82 version was brilliant! Cut-out logo, blue light, and a burning trashbag? Not only was that creative, but looked fucking phenomenal! This logo wasn't getting me to shit my pants, but it left a good taste in my mouth. It was influenced by the '82 version's but didn't fully replicate it (pardon the pun).

The first half hour wasn't as bad as I was expecting. Plenty of flaws, but passable ones. Stuff that I would have personally done differently, but hey, whatever. You're introduced to the characters. Some likeable, some just flat. Either way, it moved the story along enough. Once they cut out the cube of ice with the alien in it, it starts to move a little quicker. Fast-forward 10 minutes, the fucker breaks out of the ice. And I was skeptical in the trailer how the alien just decides to break out THEN, and not thousands of years ago. Well, it's pretty much explained. It's sitting there, being drilled into and melting. Well of course the ice is weak enough to break out of. So I was happy they clarified on that issue. Then it of course hides and snatches its first victim.

Going back to the issue of making or breaking the film. The most important one was... Special FX. One of the first things that pop into the head of a JC Thing fan's mind when hearing the words "The Thing" is: Special FX. That film has some of the most incredible special FX in any film. And Im talking practical FX, not optical or digital. Im talking splitting necks, bulging flesh, and tentacle glory. And the one lie the director of this film told us, that I do not fucking appreciate, is that his film would have plenty of practical special FX. Well, fuck you and fuck your face. The ONLY practical FX in this film were when it was lying on the fucking table doing less than a fucking paraplegic. When we're talking great special FX in JC's The Thing, we're not just talking great designs and sculptures, were talking full-on animatronic movements. Just watch the scene where Norris' head separates from his body and slides down the table. That looks god damn INCREDIBLE. Every fucking creature that moved in this 2011 The Thing was CG. And bad CG, at that. I am all for great CGI. Throw as much CGI at my face, as long as it looks great.

The first replicated human that exposes that it's The Thing was HORRID. I almost had to pinch myself as to how terrible it looked. And what was worse was that it got worse during the 7 seconds as it happened. It was like being raped THEN being set on fire... While still being raped. And it sucks because it happened in a fairly cool scene. The Thing is in the helicopter with these guys when it exposes itself, then the helicopter crashes. Would have been a flawless scene. And that happens throughout the whole movie. What you were watching had potential to be a solid prequel.

There was one thing I liked about the film, and that was the idea of it's "test scene". Instead of using blood, they use the idea of any in-organic items on or in you. IE: Tooth-fillings, metal plates, etc. So basically, The Thing can replicate you and your living cells, but nothing inanimate. Now as much as I liked the idea of not replicating the blood-test scene, it still has it's flaws. So... What if someone has never broken their bones or always flossed? Because they took care of their body, does that mean they're automatically alien? Granted, I like the idea, the blood-test was flawless seeing as all humans happen to have blood.

If you dont mind, Ill cunt about the FX a little more... They've managed to take cool designs, and completely spin them around and turn them into laughable ones due to the CG. One Im still on the fence about is the classic "split-face" creature. The route they went to explain how that happened was actually pretty cool. Basically, another guy exposes that he is The Thing, and crawls to one of the other camp members and pushes his face towards the other guy's face. To describe it best, it's almost like what a cat does with your hand or face. Pushes its face into it. The Thing was pushing it's face into the other guy's face. And the CG was a little better than previous scenes, but still would have looked 100% better had it been practical FX.

Remember in the '82 version of The Thing where there were no women? Well replace the word "women" with the word "tri-pod" in this version. I swear, there was not one fucking scene where the frame wasn't constantly moving. Close-up, wide-angle, coverage shot? Didnt fucking matter, the camera was CONSTANTLY moving. And for no damn reason. The beauty of Carpenter's The Thing was that it was so minimalistic. Let the tension prodrude out of the situation and reactions of the characters, not the fucking camera movements. The only feeling of tension I got from any of those scenes was the urge to cock-punch the damn camera man. Simplicity is key.

Before watching the 2011 version, I revisited the '82 version about 3 or 4 times to really keep an eye out of certain things at the Swedish... I mean, Norwegian camp. The bloody ax in the wall, the throat-slit guy, those yellow papers Doc is holding, the ice cube room, the helicopters, and so on. Some stuff they referenced, some stuff they didn't. First thing is first. If you make a prequel to a film in which one of it's coolest scenes includes an anonymous guy who slit his throat 4 inches deep with the blood frozen stream of blood running down his body... You not only create a 10-minute (at least!) scene explaining how and why, but you do it RIGHT! Was there a scene showing or explaining what happened to the guy for him to do this? No. In the credits, they show a shot of him. But guess what they managed to do? Fuck it up. They couldn't even replicate the gash in his throat properly. In the original, the cut in the guys throat is DEEP. In this? It's literally just a little cat scratch. I hate to complain about little things like this, but guess what? You make a prequel, you get the details down pat. You dont do your rendition of it, you do exactly as it is in the previous film to seamlessly connect the two films. That's just how it fucking works.

I will give credit where credit is due. He managed to explain the bloody ax in the wall, and managed to replicate the ice cube room pretty decently. As well as the Norwegian helicopter. You can bet your ass I was looking out for the "LOKK" (with the triangle) and "Norge" on the side of the helicopter. And he delivered. The only problem is... It was a mid-credit scene. You cut to credits when the movie is OVER. Not when it's almost over. There are exceptions, but this is not one of them.

Im actually jumping around a bit. I haven't even gotten to the climax. Im not going to give away too many spoilers, but the climax brings us inside the spaceship. It's even a track title on the soundtrack, so it's not much of a spoiler. But to go off in a little tangent, I want to explain a little something about spaceships and films. There are 3 cuts of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The theatrical release, the special edition, and the director's cut. My personal favorite is the director's cut. Speilberg's least favorite? The special edition. Why? Well, when the studio wanted to release a special edition, they asked to film an additional scene for the end of the film. They wanted to see Richard Dryfuss' character go into the ship, and actually see inside the ship. Spielberg filmed it, put it in and hated it. His theory, the mystery behind what was actually in the ship? Much better than actually SEEING what was in the ship. Which gives me a new motto. "Never go in the ship". There are of course, as always, exceptions. But for films like these, GTFO. The same happened with the ending of Cowboys & Aliens.

And to address the notion that this is a "remake". It really is not. I said it before I watched the movie, and I say it post. There really is not much else you can do different with a movie like this. You're secluded in Antarctica, where the only landscape you have is white. And when you're not outside, you're confined in a tight hallway or a small room. And since the Norwegian camp was the initial camp to encounter The Thing, the same plot tactics have to be used. Stage 1: Disbelief. Stage 2: Strategy. Stage 3: Paranoia. And so on and so forth. The one thing you CAN strike at the movie is... Well, since you can't actually do anything radically different with the film, why produce it? And Ive wondered that myself. I commonly paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcom from Jurassic Park with situations like these: Just because you can, doesnt always mean you should...

Was The Thing (2011) good? No. Was it the worse thing Ive ever seen? No. There were things to enjoy about the film. But the bad completely out-weighed the good. There are a couple things Im leaving out about the film. And that's because I just dont want to spend any more time on this film. I dont want to completely knock the director because I dont work in the film industry and I dont know what is your decision to make, and what is the studios'. And this guy being a first-time director, I cant imagine he had much say in a lot of THINGS. Get it?!?!!? Fuck off.

... Ha, and apparently the Norwegians never blew up the ice over-top the ship with thermite charges in the original. That was just in our heads (even though there was footage of it... About 9 hours of it). The vibrations from the ship miraculously disintegrated the ice in this one. Inconsistencies, inconsistencies. Fucking blow me.

Alice Cooper's "Welcome 2 My Nightmare"

2011-09-07T16:33:00.014-04:00

36 years ago came a release entitled "Welcome to My Nightmare". And what that was, was Alice Cooper's first forray as a solo artist. For those of you who are uneducated in the class of Alice Cooper, Alice Cooper was actually the band's name before he went solo. And to be frank, they are some of the best rock albums you will ever hear. But going back, "Welcome to My Nightmare" EXPLODED onto the scene, and was a huge success. Critically and financially. And with any concept album, there's ALWAYS room for a sequel. It's like a Stallone franchise. There's always gonna' be another. And for unhealthily obsessed fans as myself, it's music to my ears. Literally.

The first "Nightmare" album put you inside the mind of Alice Cooper, the character. And it varied oh so well. From it's jazz-rock intro (title track), the finger-snapping "Some Folks", the teary-eyed "Only Women Bleed", the rebellious-youth anthem "Department of Youth", the necrophilia food-referencial "Cold Ethyl", to it's straight-up/stripped down close "Escape", the album is all over the place. And in the best possible way. So good, there HAS to be a second part, right? Right... Only 36 years later.

I've listened to the new album maybe a good 5 or 6 times already, and Im still unsure of all it's micro-references and storylines. All due to the fact that I dont have the actual hard copy and booklet. Yes, I downloaded it. And you know what? Fuck you. If I shell out the $40 for the pre-order, Im entitled to enjoy it a little earlier. With any concept album, reading along as the story progresses is the best way to take in everything. But until September 13, Im going to have to try and piece it together by ear.

And so the nightmare begins. The albums opens up with "I Am Made of You". I absolutely LOVE this song. It creates an atmosphere parallel to the '75's "Nightmare" atmosphere... Only different. There's auto-tune. Yeah, I said the same thing when I heard about it. But take a couple steps back. Think about what auto-tune was intended to be used for. As an effect. I have no problem with someone who has the ability to sing using it as a tool. Most of the rappers using it can't fucking sing. So they rely on technology to sing for them. But Alice can sing. And it actually makes him sound creepier. From what I've gathered, it picks up right where the last "Nightmare" left off. He's trapped in this nightmare and he's looking for someone to get him out. It's got some rather powerful pieces.

Next up is "Caffeine". This is quite possibly my favorite song on the album. Fucking LOVE it. It's a great rock 'n roll jam. Ridiculously catchy verses and a fun wit-filled chorus. The song is essentially a Nightmare on Elm Street-esque song. It's not about the film, but it shares the idea of having to stay awake or you'll die. I just love the line "Im shakin' in the ice cold shower! I've been here for about week!" doesn't sound too cool in black and white, but listen to it. You'll understand what I mean.

Third is "The Nightmare Returns". For those of you who know "Steven", this is essentially the beginning of "Steven", but with a heavy rock injection. The beginning has Cooper singing a children's nursery rhyme. It kind of reminds me of "Lullaby" off of "The Last Temptation" album. It's a short track, but very enjoyable.

"A Runaway Train". This one is a stripped down, one-beat, no-structure kind of song. The title works really well with the song itself. It sounds as if the song is a runaway train itself. The same riff and beat just keeping going and going and going. But it never gets boring. The lyrics compliment the tunes because they're actually quite clever. I remember when I first heard the lyric "Im on the wrong side of the dirt", I thought to myself, "Hmmm, that sounds a bit... OH I GET IT.". But once I got it, I thought it was genius. Cleva' girl. And for some reason, it reminds me a lot of Jimi Hendrix.

Next we have "The Last Man On Earth". And this is another personal favorite of mine. It's so fucking good. For those of you keeping score, this is almost the "Some Folks" of "W2MN". The music itself is what you would hear at a cheap Vaudevillian show. Snares with brush sticks, banjos, fiddles. Everything about the song works so well. But what stands out is Cooper's vocals. He has a fucking MEAN snarl in this song. When I listen to this song, I cant help but to think of the Twilight Zone episode with Burgess Merideth. That's the setting I see for this song. Empty, desolate... An anti-humanity paradise.

"The Congregation" is next. I enjoy this song quite a bit. It has a cool intro, then segways to something that could be off of "The Eyes of Alice Cooper". It's got that garage rock attitude. This song serves almost as the purgatory of the nightmare. When you die, you go to The Congregation. Towards the end, Alice turns into a sideshow showman. In a non-lyrical speaking bit, he introduces us to dead lawyers, pimps, stock brokers. Touches up on our disastrous economy a bit. But it's very tongue-in-cheek.

Here we have Nicolas Ca...Er, Alice Cooper's "I'll Bite Your Face Off". A title only Alice can get away with. This serves as the single for this release. And it's a great one at that. "I'll Bite Your Face Off" is undoubtedly The Rolling Stones. It almost sounds as if the notes are emitting from Keith Richards' decrepid fingers right then and there. The song itself is about a woman who does very bad things to men. Alice has done quite a few songs like this. In fact, he has two on this album. One good, and one... We'll get there. Anyway, the best part comes toward the end. It's a gorgeous piano bit. As Walter Sobchak would tell you, "It really ties the song together".

Ah, "Disco Bloodbath Boogie Fever". This is a song that you're either going to get. Or not get. And if you dont get it. Get the fuck out. This song is genius. This track follows a group of people who go on a killing spree at a disco club. And as humorous as the song is, it's creepy as well. The line "On the wall, count to ten, we mow you down, RELOAD AGAIN!". Fucking hilariously creepy. 75% of the song is an actual disco song. And that's the part I dont think people are going to get. But you know what? Fuck 'em. Their loss. Because once the disco music stops, and the killer Motorhead-esque riff revs up, the song just floors it from there.

"Ghouls Gone Wild". I cant say it's my favorite song. But it's not bad. It's pretty much a Beach Boys/Green Day hybrid. When I hear the song, I just picture the beginning of Jaws. And that's pretty much what the song is. Ghouls partying on the beach, in the streets, and so on. It's a fun little tune with a clever title, but that's really all.

The obligatory Alice ballad. "Something to Remember Me By". One thing Alice has always been consistent with, is his ballads. I dont recollect one album without one. Even his 2 god-awful industrial nu-metal albums have some beautiful ballads. And this song is nothing short of beautiful. Now Im still unclear as to WHAT that "something" is. Upon hearing the title, I picture something twisted. Like a severed head or a dead animal. But there's nothing in the song that indicates a twisted love song. Regardless, it's a beautiful song. To compare it to another ballad, it's in the vein of "I Never Cry".

"When Hell Comes Home" is particularly interesting because it has this heavy piano eerieness to it. And it meshes perfectly with the dark content of the lyrics. Which delve into child abuse, drinking, and murder. Lyrically, it reminds me of "Dead Babies". Cooper's singing style in this song is like that of a snake. Snakes cant sing, I know. What Im trying to convey is his flow has a slither-like quality to it. All in all, it's a damn good song.

Ugh, I was trying to avoid this song. For days Ive tried to forget this song. Nothing works. Hammers, clubs, tire-irons, nothing is releasing this song from my brain. And this song is "What Baby Wants". The OTHER "woman doing bad things to men" song. Except this woman is the Devil. And the Devil is Ke$ha. "You mean Alice is making fun of Ke$ha in the song?". "No, I mean she sings on the song you wish was only making fun of her.". To be honest, it's not even an Alice Cooper song with Ke$ha on it. It's a Ke$ha song featuring Alice Cooper. Is it really? No. It's on the album. But that's what it sounds like. Computer-processed feux-sounding guitars, weird computer bleeps, and just a plethora of "No! No! No!". And what's even worse is there is one section that almost caused a black hole in the center of the universe. One section features a synthesized violin that is pulled directly out of Britney Spear's "Toxic", which is a rip-off of Alice Cooper's "Poison". So Ke$ha, a rip-off of Britney Spears, appears on a rip-off tune that's a rip-off of Alice Cooper to begin with. In a nutshell, simply make the song "not exist" when you transfer it into your iTunes or whatehaveyou.

"Gotta Get Outta Here" is the last vocal song on the album. It pretty much serves as the "Escape" of this album. It's also a re-capper as well. It sums up the whole album's series of events. As for the music itself, it's very catchy. It's more so an acoustic-based tune with the support of distortion.

And the nightmare concludes with this INCREDIBLE instrumental, orchestrated suite called "The Underture". This song features orchestrated/rock renditions on some of the new tunes, but a few off of the original "Nightmare" album. A great closer. And almost serves as a great opener (if you're going to listen to the album directly after it's finish!).

What can be said about Alice Cooper's "Welcome 2 My Nightmare"? Genius. As much credit Alice deserves for this installment, Bob Ezrin, Alice's producer deserves just as much. The problem with some of Alice's later albums was that Ezrin didn't produce them. And the way I see it, Ezrin is the glue. He somehow manages to mesh together a handful of things that would otherwise never mesh together. Ezrin also adds that extra ensured quality as well. There are only a handful of Coop albums that I do not like (and those are from the early 80's). But I can openly admit, Ezrin and Cooper are definitely stronger together than alone. There are so many little nuances on this album that I am sure were spawned from Ezrin's brain, and Im sure there are little nuances that were spawned from Alice's grey matter only because he probably thought, "What would Ezrin do?".

Another plus, the original Alice Cooper group. The original members perform on a handful of these songs. Which I find to be incredible. Kinda' odd at the same time due to the fact that the first "Welcome to My Nightmare" was the first album WITHOUT them, but killer nonetheless.

With this latest effort, I think Alice will get a little revival in terms of mainstream popularity. I can only imagine what the stage show will be in support of the new album. The first "Welcome To My Nightmare" is amongst the biggest stage production EVER done at that time, and amongst the biggest stage shows in Alice's arsenal. And I think this will be Alice's biggest financial hit he's had in a long while. To conclude though, this is a SOLID fucking album. One dud on a 52-minute album? I dont see a problem there. And nor should you.

Retro-Appreciation: Roadie

2011-08-18T03:20:00.005-04:00

A couple weeks back, a co-worker of mine suggested a movie to me called Roadie. And how he sold me the movie was, "The whole objective is that this groupie MUST travel the road to have sex with Alice Cooper.". Okay, this movie can't have existed in the 80's. That is something I would have come up with intoxicated (probably even sober). But fortunately enough, there is someone else out there whole managed bring that idea to frusion. I find it simply amazing that this movie was made. Simply. Amazing. What isn't amazing is how I hadn't found out about this film until now. I've listened to Alice Cooper since I was 7 (didn't start loving him until about 13), and Im just finding out about this movie NOW? Despicable on my end...

Anyway, so as I mentioned before, the film is essentially about a girl who just needs to get laid by Alice Cooper. Oh yeah, and it has Meatloaf (starring), Blondie, and Art Carney. Meatloaf plays a hick truck-driver who gets sucked into being a roadie for Hank Williams Jr. And turns out, Meatloaf is a phenomenal roadie. There are a few skewed plot points in my memory due to a fair amount of alcohol-consumption, but by the end of it, it instantly became a favorite of mine. It is indeed as retarded as it sounds. And it isnt by any stretch a "good movie". But it sure as hell is fun. As Ive explained before, it's The Blues Brothers with a potent dose of Budweiser, incest, retardation, loud music... And Alice Cooper.

For those of you who enjoy the good 'ole rundown, this film includes:

- Meatloaf being sloppy

- Meatloaf having a literal ram-head-butt bar fight

- Meatloaf saving a Blondie concert single-handedly

- A redneck wedding

- A redneck beer-cooler/wheelchair

- Cokehead laundry mat grandmothers

- Sexual-arousal by Alice Cooper

- A mobile redneck telephone booth/house phone

- And honestly too much to mention...

To elaborate on points that AREN'T Alice Cooper, incest, or retardation, there is an actual conflict. That being, Meatloaf falls in love with the groupie who wants to sleep with Alice Cooper. And through that, the last act seperates into it's own little sections. With a movie like this, you actually do need a little SOMETHING to give it some glue to stick together. As much fun as it is to hop from bar to bar, show to show, you need something that at least imitates a story. Now the last act is where it gets juicy. For me, it's almost like going down a water slide. For the whole movie you get the talk of "Alice Cooper! Alice Cooper!", you hear the songs, but you never get to see him. But as I said about the water slide, you're getting wet along the way, but then you spill out into the pool. And in the last act, you get to not only meet him, but he also performs.

Really, when it comes down to it, it's just a fun movie to drink to. But then again, what isn't? Oh yeah, Memento. If you're a giant Alice Cooper/Meatloaf/Blondie fan, watch it. If you enjoy The Blues Brothers, watch it. If you enjoy films in which it's posters feature tiny leaves between a film festival logo... Just fuck off.

Cowboys & Aliens

2011-07-30T04:47:00.010-04:00

John Favreau is one of those directors in which I really don't care for most of his films, but I actually really like the guy. And by that, I mean that I know he's not a hack or a fraud. Ive seen plenty of interviews, his Dinner For Five show, and he genuinely seems like a lover of film and has that genuine non-forced nerd quality about him. But not in the annoying vein of Quentin Tarantino. Like a more relaxed Martin Scorsese (in terms of personality, NOT film making). Im not the biggest fan of Iron Man (in fact, I think it's actually pretty bland). Iron Man 2? It got scathed, but I dont think it's much worse than Iron Man. It's just kinda' more of the same. That doesn't go to say that I think either are terrible. I am just not a giant fan of his movies. Until Cowboys & Aliens.

To jump right in, I really enjoyed Cowboys & Aliens. What I love most is that it's a western with aliens. Not a sci-fi film with cowboys. It's almost the opposite of Star Wars. Think about the scene in which Obi-Wan, Luke and Han all meet for the first time. It's in a bar (which would translate to a saloon), and they're basically looking for a gun for hire with a horse and carriage. It's a western in a sci-fi setting. That's what I think makes this film work. It's the fact that they try to establish characters that actually interact with each other. Not just fodder for the aliens to fuck with. I actually kind of gave a shit about why this kid shouldnt be sent to jail, and the repercussions that would come. Obviously, it's not going to be character work that you're going to see in Once Upon A Time In The West or The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but it's enough to actually CARE.

Ill continue with the top-billing name. Daniel Craig. Ive grown to really like him. He met all the requirements of a James Bond and he seems like a rather cool dude. The role was originally supposed to go to Robert Downey Jr. (no surprise there [everyone wants their Bobby DeNiro]), but for some reason, he didnt do it. And I dont mind because Daniel Craig did a good job portraying the Eastwood-esque badass. I have a feeling that Downey Jr. would have included more of his signature wit, which would not have been a totally bad thing. I just think the character called for a more take-no-shit kind of actor. And Craig definitely carried that out within the first 15 minutes. Punching dicks and bashing heads into steel? That works.

Now to the main reason I pledged myself to this movie... Harrison Ford. I remember when the movie was announced, I was like, "Yeah, I'll check it out.". Then Ford was casted and I went from "Sounds cool" to "IM IN". It was something that I always figured he has done, but never actually did. A western. I mean, look at Indiana Jones. I know that when I think about Indy, I see dirt, deserts, and all the ruggedness that comes with a western. Except now, he's actually IN one. PERFECT casting by Favreau. Harrison Ford fanboy-ism aside, was he phenomenal in Cowboys & Aliens? No. But he was pretty damn fucking cool. The one thing about his character that I was surprised with and enjoyed was he was a semi-heel to start with. He wasn't a terribly good man. And Ford needs that. He's always the hero, rarely ever the baddie. That isn't to say he stays like that, but for the little while he is, it's fun to see what he does with his character Dolarhyde.

The rest of the cast was pretty impressive as well. Sam Rockwell, Clancy Brown (Starship Troopers!), and a brief appearance from STEPHEN. Who's Stephen? A wanted man from his island. Okay, maybe Im cross-referencing here. Stephen from Braveheart, David O'Hara. I love that guy. Braveheart, The Departed, this. Everything he's in, he's golden. But again, the cast was pretty damn good. Olivia Wilde was good too. Though, any problems with her character that I had werent really HER fault. More so the writing. Cant really talk about those problems due to it kinda' being a giant fucking spoiler. Though mentioning it being a spoiler might be a spoiler in of itself...

The aliens. Spoiler or not, I have to touch up on what half the fucking movie is about. This has been a fairly disappointing year in alien design. And for that statement to exist, there has to be a plethora of alien films. And this year there were plenty. Battle: LA, Paul, I Am Number Four, Super 8, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Now of all those releases, only 3 are straight-forward alien films. Battle: LA, Super 8 and now Cowboys & Aliens. And as I said, the creature designs have been "meh". Battle: LA's aliens were incomprehensible and Super 8's alien design was pretty fucking lame. And Cowboys & Aliens? Well, it was a slightly satisfying visual. When I first saw the creature, I didnt know what to think. Then I saw more of it, and my opinion started to become more whole. And to be honest, I thought it was okay. And at this point, that's good enough for me. After being so incredibly amped for Super 8, and it delivering such a crappy creature design, I can settle for the aliens in this film. They're almost crustacean-looking aliens. But not like District 9. In this, they're more bulky and menacing. Could they have given me a better-looking alien? Yeah. Did it turn me off to the film? No.

The score. Nothing overly memorable, but I dug it. Im listening to it on YouTube now just to remember the tone of it. I remember liking it. But I was also drunk, so I dont remember too much of the score itself. But hearing it now, there are actually more layers to it than I remember. It has 3 particular thematic ques. The action ques, the western guitar ques, and some softer emotional ques, in which I du. The score wasn't mind-blowing, but it definitely complimented the film. And that is essentially what a score's main purpose is.

Is this one of the better summer films? Id say so. It hasnt been an incredible summer. Let alone, year. Im hoping the fall and winter brings some surprise gems.

But my hat's off to Favreau. Finally a movie I can say I actually really like from him. That's another thing I give him immense credit for. NOT to shoot the film in 3D. And Im not hopping on the "I hate 3D" train. I love 3D when the film calls for it and when it's done properly. This movie? There was really nothing that screamed "3D!!!". But that's not why I respect Favreau for his decision. It's because he wanted to shoot his western on celluloid film. And with 3D, you have to shoot digital unless you want a mediocre post-converted 3D final product. So in the end, Cowboys & Aliens is a job well done. But seriously... Cowboys & Paraplegics? Come on.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

2011-07-02T00:12:00.004-04:00

Michael Bay Action Movie #9. That's how many people will look at Transformers: Dark of the Moon. And I cant really say I disagree with them. But the difference is... I actually really enjoy (most of) Michael Bay's films. Do any of them have intricate and/or compelling stories? No, not particularly. But the man knows how to make a solid action flick. That is for sure. I really don't want to start this review off all "Michael Bay! Michael Bay! Michael Bay!", but I think I need to address my position on the dude. I am well-aware that his films are mindless action. I know he owns his copy of "How To Make A Movie" with the "Characters" and "Story" chapters ripped out. But guess what? He DOES know how to make a movie. He just needs to hire the proper writers. But when I walk out of a Michael Bay film (even Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen), I never feel ripped off (well, that kinda also has to do with being a theatre manager and not having to pay). But what I mean by that is, he DOES give you his bang for your buck. Literally. There is a reason the films cost so much. And that's the production value. The FX, the locations, and the all-around scale of the film.

People can complain about his movies being FX-heavy. Well? Fuck off. You can complain about films being too FX-heavy if their FX are terrible. And even though I voice my pro-Bay opinion with a slightly less defensive tone, I will battle anyone who says his films' FX are "shitty" or "terrible". Feel the way you want about him (and I can totally see why people hate his films). But do NOT trash the FX. That is the one thing he is more talented at than anyone. Bringing great special FX to the big screen. And no, that doesnt make a film good. But it certainly helps a great deal. Alright, Ive said what I needed to say. Now to TFDOTM. No, not "Transformers: Dark of the Moon", "Total Fucking Destruction On The Maximum Level". Okay, so there's no "L". I thought it was clever enough to not have to waste it. Im an idiot. The review...

2007, Transformers. A fun, surprisingly entertaining movie. Didnt know how much you could do with a live action toy franchise film. But it was fun enough to lure me back for the second. 2009, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Eh. Everyone trashes it, but I look at it for what it is... Robots punching each other in the dick. And dont kid yourself, that is what they are. But the first has that element of surprise. The second was just more of the same, just longer. People seemed to think they could take more away from an orgy-of-metal film. As much as I can enjoy Revenge of the Fallen, I do admit it was a far lesser film. Now, 2011, we have Transformers: Dark of the Moon. And I can honestly say that surprise element is back. And that's only due to Revenge of the Fallen falling off the wagon a bit. Had Revenge been just as good at the first, there would be no surprise in Dark of the Moon being good. It would just be expected. But Bay hopped back on the wagon again, and really made a solid Transformers film again.

With Dark of the Moon, he made some good decisions and some bad decisions. First, the good. He erased those fucking terrible twin ebonic robots. Unlike most people, I wasnt offended by them in the second film. What is there to be offended by? So what? They speak like black people. If you were offended, just piss off. The problem with the ebonic robots was that they were FUCKING ANNOYING. And luckily, Bay had enough sense to scrap them for this film. That isn't to say that he doesnt have stupid robots in this. Just not on level of retardation as Skids and Mudflap. Another thing done right by Bay was that he scaled the film down. But by JUST enough. Pirates 4 tried to scale it down from the third film, and it just made it fucking BORING. Pirates 4 felt so damn bland because it needed to feel bigger. Dark of the Moon had just the right size and scope. Granted, the film is still HUGE. But it's not all over the world. The film mostly takes place in D.C. and Chicago.

Now... The bad. As expected, the humor. Or as I call it "Michael Bay Humor". I dont think I really need to elaborate on what that is, but I will anyway. Bay has the humor of an 5th grader. And that's not to say I dont have the humor of a child, but I dont make $200 million dollar films with 5th grader humor. And you know what? Every 15 childish jokes, does come that one guilty laugh. It sometimes CAN make you laugh. But I dont forget why Im sitting in that seat. It's because I want to hear robot dicks clanking together for 2 and a half hours. But my 5th grader humor aside, Bay is pretty terrible at humor. But when it is humorous, it's usually only humorous in the "laughing at you" kind of way.

The FX. Again, Bay and his team managed to make my brain hurt. And I mean that in a good way. Im very rarely confused with who's fighting who, as most people are. That's not the reason my brain hurt. The real reason is because I cannot understand, and probably never will understand how they manage to create such incredible FX. I still cant fathom how it's done. I understand that it is a plethora of animation artists, but that doesnt make it any less easier to comprehend. My hat goes off to all the sketch artists, the concept artists, the rendering artists, the animation artists, everyone. Each and every dollar really does show up on screen.

The 3D. This film has been praised to have the best 3D since Avatar. And I can say that I would agree with that. I dont particularly think it's better than Avatar's 3D, but it does a hold a light to it. Im happy Cameron convinced Bay to shoot in 3D before shooting. Because the last thing I would want Paramount to do with Dark of the Moon, is post-convert it as they did with their previous and upcoming releases for this year. Thor's post-conversion wasn't bad, but it doesnt really sell 3D in a GREAT light. And to my giant surprise, Bay didn't really pull any "Comin-At-Ya" 3D tricks. The film actually has less 3D gimmicks than Avatar. I would expect the opposite from Michael Bay.

The cast. Bay managed to round up an impressive cast. Well actually... They're all just Coen Brothers steals. Ill give him John Tutoro since he's been in every film since the first. But to bring John Malkovich and Frances McDormand into the mix, I liked that. McDormand was pretty okay. Nothing special. But I liked her in this. Malkovich was.. Well... Bay-ized. Michael Bay managed to turn him into a typical stupid Michael Bay character, but a fun stupid Michael Bay character. Basically, John Malkovich plays a Boston-accented Bob Barker. He talks like Matt Damon, but looks like he slept in Bob Barker's spray-tan soaked bed. As I said, his character was stupid, just not annoying stupid. Guilty-laugh stupid. And that's good enough for me in a Michael Bay film. Shia LeBeouf is Shia LeBeouf in this. Not particularly likeable, but not annoying-as-fuck as he can be. And his new girlfriend. Well, it's another case of Michael Bay casting a super model instead of an actress. So many people complain about Megan Fox's absence. Uh...What's the difference? Neither can act to save a short bus of retarded children. To me, it was like replacing a mannequin with a pull-string with another mannequin with a pull-string. Except... This mannequin looks like a duck. I dont know if Rosie Huntington-Whiteley spent money to get her lips to look like that, or needs to spend money to get them fixed. Regardless, I still think Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington were two broads who were getting boned by Michael Bay and happened to walk in front of the cameras for 3 movies.

I always hate vaguely writing about the end of the film because it's usually the worst or best part of the film. And you usually feel the most passionately about something you love or hate. Let's put it this way: If you have read any reviews on TF3, the end IS the best part of the film. For a solid 40+ minutes, it really stays strong. Ive read that it's "cant breathe great". No. There are a few minutes of down-time between each giant robot-destruction beat, but it's not dull downtime. All I can say aside from that is that THAT is where the 3D looks the absolute best. The fucking jumper pilot shots are just as good as anything Avatar 3D.

Wrapping up, see Transformers: Dark of the Moon if you are interested. If you're not a fan of Transformers, dont waste your time. And see it in 3D. It may not be as good as Avatar's 3D, but damnit, it's close. Dont feel like paying the 3D price? Steal glasses from the recycled glasses bin (have fun with that pink eye!). Just dont do it at my theatre. Ill kick your ass out.

The Ward

2011-06-22T16:21:00.002-04:00

R.I.P. John Carpenter. Or rather, rest in peace John Carpenter's CAREER. Years and years ago John Carpenter made Ghosts of Mars. Awful. Just awful. Okay, maybe it was just a poor script choice for him. Whatever. Every director gets them. But USUALLY a director hops back on the wagon and makes a good film after that. Even if they make another shitty film even after hopping back on. And I can gladly say that Carpenter hasn't taken George Romero's route. George Romero is WAY past the point of no return. Almost so far that if he was announced "dead" tomorrow, I would say, "They're just releasing it?". But Im not going to go that far since he did create 3 of THEE greatest horror films to ever exist, and from what i've heard, Romero is a really nice guy, so I he doesnt deserve ANY bad words, PERSONALLY. But the man can't make a film worth sloth shit anymore. Ive said it before... All of Romero's fans should invest in putting ole' George in a home. And sadly, I think Carpenter might be next. Except... Carpenter SEEMS sensible enough to realize, "Wow, I dont make good movies anymore...".

So... John Carpenter. The man who made Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween, Escape from New York, The Thing, Big Trouble In Little China, Prince of Darkness, and so many more, he finally lost his marbles with The Ward. And you know what? It's not as bad as you're expecting. But it's not good. And I guess as a huge Carpenter fan, it could be worse. But in the end, the film just looks like a huge tombstone with his career engraved.

Okay, the film starts off pretty good. An okay set-up, a really cool title card, and some pretty cool credits (the classic Carpenter font, for those of you who are pathetic enough to know what I mean). And really, for the first 15-20 minutes, it's pretty okay. Nothing "FUCK YES"-worthy, but good nonetheless. Then the girls start "acting". Alright, horror movies and females acting... USUALLY the same outcome. A train wreck. But in something as non-over-the-top as this? Get SOME decent actors.

So as the movie "progresses" (to progress usually means to get better [in this case, it doesnt]), the same tricks are used. Something weird happens at night, it pans to the girls face, and it fades to the next day. That happens about 3 or 4 times. And it's not as if there are any pieces left for us to pick up or follow. It's just being mysterious for the hell of it. It wasn't until a couple minutes later where you say, "Wow...". And no, not that "Wow..." where you think something's going to happen. It's that "Wow..." where you realize you've seen this movie before. Not only that, but done better. It was called Shutter Island. Seriously, the movie was Shutter Island with a fraction of the budget. And seriously, when you pit John Carpenter against Martin Scorcese it's a hard battle for me. I LOVE both. I enjoy Carpenter's best films over Scorcese's best, but the difference between those two, is that Scorcese is so much more consistent throughout each and EVERY decade.

Moving on as to why The Ward is a lame chapter in Carpenter's career. He really needs to edit from the past while he creates in the future. And what I mean by that is, a lot of the times, the edits and sound design were really bringing out that "Straight-to-Video" quality. Or lack thereof. If he edited this as if were made in the 80's, and not with all the editing tricks of today, it would have felt like a lesser 80's Carpenter film. And as uninspiring as that sounds, it's hopeful at the same time. Meaning, all he would have to do is find that perfect script and he's golden. If his direction was sharp in this, I would totally give it more points. But it wasn't. Sharp direction with a poor script, is Michael Bay. Bash the guy all you want, but he knows how to make a movie. Knows pacing. Knows shots. Knows how to ecenomically make a film. A story? Not so much. Unfortunately with Carpenter, he cant choose a good script or direct as well as he could before. And another sad fact about The Ward is that he didnt score it. And it's not the first time he hasn't scored a film of his, but maybe it would have given it some more of that Carpenter feel. But granted, one of the best things about the film was SOME of the music. And I say "SOME" because there were little sections that I loved, but mostly were just that annoying mesh of sounds and kinda-almost-music. I hate that.

And the end. Well. Im not going to "ruin" it. But halfway through I thought, "Please dont be that It's ___ in _____ head" ending. Hope I didnt ruin it for you. Because I totally didnt expect it. At all. Not. One. Bit. Like, at all. Ugh. I really expected more from Carpenter. Really? The ending in which was popular 5 years ago? It's not even like he hopped on the band wagon. He hopped on a band wagon that lost it's wheels years ago.

Does the movie suck? I guess not? But is it good by any means? I guess not. It's one of those. And I still cant decide which is worse. I love John Carpenter. I always will. He's made some of my all-time favorite movies. And he seems like a real great down-to-earth guy that I would blow my whole paycheck on, to buy him countless rounds of booze and countless packs of smokes, but I dont know if he has it anymore, as a film maker. When I heard Romero was making whatever "... Of the Dead" film a year or two ago (I honestly forget what it was called, thats how bad his career has gotten), but when I heard about his film announcement, I didnt really even pay attention. But Carpenter? You bet your ass I was on it. I followed the film with every story that was ran. But then it got a shit-release. And unlike The Beaver, I guess I can understand why. The movie was not good. But can you give the greatest horror film maker a shot? Even if the movie sucks, give him a good run. I never thought you could get worse than STV (Straight-to-Video). But you can... VOD (Video-on-Demand). And that's what The Ward has gotten. John Carpenter, the man who made HALLOWEEN, is now VOD film director.

R.I.P.

Super 8

2011-06-09T23:05:00.003-04:00

I remember a little over a year and a half ago, I saw a little teaser before Iron Man 2, and it was a film called "Super 8". Now, the first image was a yellow truck. And for some reason, the first image that came to mind was Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Which of course features Richard Dryfuss' character, Roy Neary's truck. There was no particular reason as to why I thought THAT truck, it's just what I thought. And it wasn't until "something" was trying to break out of the train cargo that I thought "Wow, this might be a Close Encounters reference". So as the months passed by, more marketing was done for the film. TV spots, trailers, posters and I was instantly hooked. I love aliens, I love Spielberg, and I really dig Abrams (not so much his work, but his nerd/creative mentality). I mean, I just like the guy. So without going into complete spoiler territory, Ill keep it to a mininum.

First off, I want to explain one thing. There is a difference between ripping off and homage. Tarantino rips people off. In his HEAD, he's paying tribute some whoever he is ripping off, but there is nothing to indicate "HEY! This is from another movie!" to the average movie goer. And Ill admit it, sometimes he rips people off good (as counter-insulting as that sounds [is that word?]). But what Abrams is doing here is just a complete homage to the ole late 70's/80's Amblin films. And honestly, just having Speilberg as producer on this film instantly makes it a homage to his films. It's kind of like if I were to film a scene in which a guy parks his car like The Blues Brothers. If it was just that, you would say, "That's ripped straight out of The Blues Brothers!". But if he parks the car like The Blues, and his passenger said, "Okay, Elwood...". That's a nod or a homage to The Blues Brothers. It's not trying to pass as it's own. And as I said, just having Spielberg as a producer instantly passes it as a nod and not a rip off to any of his films.

And you know what? The movie works. Until the end. But Ill get to that later. For now, Ill elaborate as to why 80% of the movie works. First of all, the kids. They casted a GREAT group of kids. It was clear they were going for The Goonies/E.T. group of kids. And it worked really well. You have the lead, Elliot-type character, the fat Chunk-like character, the girl, and the side friends. But the best was the main kid, the fatty, and the girl. This is a first time job for most of them, and they hit the right timing on most of their lines. The main kid didn't overact anything really, at all. The fat kid had some great, genuine comic timing, and the girl had that right balance of "the regular girl" and totally not boring. And the one great thing about it was, they seemed like they were actually a real group of friends, eventhough they all met on the set. Kudos to the kids and casting agents. And to Abrams for knowing how to direct kids.

As mentioned above, this movie is a bunch of movies in one. And to just put it out there, it's: The Gonnies, E.T., Close Encounters, District 9, and Signs all in one. The Goonies and E.T. I already elaborated on. But the main influence, that I see, is Close Encounters. And Im not just saying that cause it's one of my absolute favorite movies of all. There are shots taken DIRECTLY from Close Encounters. From the evacuation scenes, to the US Military's presence, to even the setting. It's all Close Encounters. And I dont have a problem with that. It actually did it quite well. I absolutely love that small-town rustic 70's look. It makes your bond with the group of kids that much more meaningful. If it were in a kind of boring setting, you wouldnt really care what the hell they were doing, or where they were going.

I also listed Signs as one of the influences. Was it an influence? I dont think so. Could it have been a rip-off? I think so. And this not being a spoiler, the kid's mom is dead in the beginning of the movie. So all it is, is the kid and his father, who is a local police deputy. So therin lies not only a Signs rip-off, but a Spielberg nod. Instead of father-neglect (a common theme in Spielberg films), it's his mother. Only, she didnt neglect him. She died. But getting back to the Signs rip-off. In Signs, a father is left with his two kids after his wife dies from being hit by a car while jogging. And the person who hit her tried to reach out to the husband, but just couldnt bring himself to it. In this, dude's wife dies because a co-worker called out, she covered his shift, and something terrible happened at work and she died. The dude goes to the funeral and tries to reach out and the husband doesn't want it. There's more to it in the film, but I dont want to lay the whole movie out for you. But there are some story-points taken from Signs.

The other film it kind of riffs from is District 9. And with this, Im not going to get into. Reason being, it would give too much away, story wise. Although, Im sure you might have guessed what it might have taken from D9. Now those are the films that I saw that Abrams had been influenced by. But he listed a few others, officially, as influences. The Thing, Scanners, and Slumber Party Massacre. Slumber Party, really? Apparently, it was for soundtrack musical choises. Why that film? Dont know. But it's odd and I like it.

The end. Dont worry, it's safe to read after this point. It's no secret, you see the movie you see the monster. Or alien. Or whathaveyou. And THERE lies the problem for me. The one thing Abrams SHOULD have taken from Spielberg's past films, was Jaws. In Jaws, you barely see the shark until really the end. Yes, you see glimpses of it, but not the entire thing. First off, Abrams could have chosen a MUCH better creatur design. And this is coming from someone who loved Cloverfield (I dont give a flaming shit. That was a great monster movie!). I loved the Cloverfield monster. It looked as if a creepy white hairless cat had mutated with a grasshopper. It just looked fucking cool. But this monster... Eh... No. Im not going to describe it, because that would be fucking retarded. But they could have done better. Much better. I have a comparrison as to what the monster looked like, but I wont say. Ill only give 3 clues: A 1998 animation film that ends with the letter "Z". Moving on...

The monster was where the brick started to crumble. And what happened after... They could have avoided the "SHOW EVERYTHING" approach. And I guess that's the end of the review really. The rest would just be spoilers.

All in all, it was a fun movie. Had an intriguing story, some really good acting, some fun references, a decent score, and a worthy entry for Abrams' film catalog. Was I disappointed? Yeah. Was it terrible? No. It'll actually probably end up being one of the better summer movies. Oh yeah, and there are lense flares.

The Beaver

2011-05-20T02:37:00.007-04:00

The Beaver. He's here to save Walter's life. And this being a spoiler without being a spoiler, he saves Walter's life. Now that might tell you the outcome of the film, but it's not the outcome of the film that you really care about. It's what causes the outcome...

Now it's no secret that I am completely homosexual for Mel Gibson. It's no secret that I have 10 Mel Gibson posters lining my whole bed. It's no secret that whatever he says or does affects me 0%. In fact, a lot of it makes me smile and only adds to his genius insanity (Ill get into that later). But the point Im trying to get across is that, as I sit here, typing up this review, Im being non-biased. I can tell whether I like a film because it's a good film, or if I like it because someone I admire is in it. And The Beaver is a film I like because it is a good film.

When I first heard about this film, I had one question. It was slightly different than most people's initial question, which was, "Is he really doing this movie?". But mine was, "Is this art imitating life, or vice versa?". Because this a PERFECT role for Mel Gibson. Let's see, one of his most iconic characters (that WASNT Max Rockantanksy or William Wallace) was portraying an insane person. Martin Riggs. And The Beaver's Walter Black wasn't far off, in terms of sickness in the head. So I was instantly excited for this film (aside from the fact that it was Mel Gibson's next prospect). Okay, got that out of the way. Moving on...

The Beaver as some of you may know was directed by Jodie Foster. And not having directed a film for 16 years, she did a damn good job. And as any movie, it didnt play without flaws. But I was really impressed with her directing capabilities. First off, this film had a script that was on the "Black List" for a while. And for that alone, I give Foster immense credit for taking on this project. Now with a film like this, you balance on a VERY thin line of drama and comedy. And that's a very hard thing to do. But Foster does it good. Granted, not perfect, but good. To get into more specifics, there is a scene where Walter tries to kill himself. She actually hits all the points that she needs to hit in that scene. She nails the comedy of him not being able to even kill himself properly, but then nails the drama and pity you start to feel towards him by letting it settle to make you think, "Shit, it's funny, but it's really kinda' sad...". Unfortunately, she doesnt use that perfect formula throughout, but it at least keeps you aware that the film you're watching, it's made by someone who DOES know what they're doing.

Before I get to the flaws of the film, Ill touch up on the positive aspects of it. First and foremost (and again, Im being non-biased) is Gibson. This film might not be what is considered an "Oscar-worthy" film (eventhough it's a thousand times better than half the dogshit that is nominated), but his performance is. Gibson really does carry this film. And not without the help of Foster's direction. Walter Black is clearly the source of "The Beaver"'s voice, but Foster manages to include Gibson's mouth or face in every shot, whether he's blurry in the background, or right aside the puppet, he's always there to remind you that it's not a completely silly premise. Now, if you walked into the theatre completely unaware about the movie, you would say to yourself, "Really?!", but it's Gibson's portrayal of his character where you stop smiling and start to realize that this guy has a serious condition. Some actors uses tones and line-delivery to really drive a scene. Gibson, not only does that, but he uses his facial expressions to really sell the scene. You have method actors, actors who NEED to get into a character, and natural actors, who can do almost any role without HAVING to go that extra mile. And Gibson is the latter.

Now to the direction. If this movie is any indictation, I can say that Jodie Foster knows how to balance multiple tones. For instance, this was comedy and drama and she did it well. but as I said before, it didnt play without flaws. Some scenes felt as if she should have treated them with a little less unintentional humor. There were scenes where it should have focused more on Walter than Walter and the beaver. Maybe she was trying to convey the feeling that his family felt, with them not being able to deal with him without the beaver, but personally, I felt it could have focused more on HIM than them. Maybe get inside his head a little more BEFORE he finds the beaver puppet. But she did achieve a good balance formula for about 85% of the movie.

One other flaw though, was Walter's son. And this might actually be a partially biased opinion. But I didnt feel very sympathetic towards him. First off, I do not like Anton Yelchin as an actor. Secondly, his whole storyline didnt really demand the amount of interest as his father's. Dude wrote papers for other people in high school... Okay. So where's the conflict? It was a very weak attempt to make us feel for the guy. Thirdly, his relationship with the girl he liked was pretty weak as well. Not as weak as the "conflict" he faced with writing papers for people, but weak nonetheless. I kinda' didnt give a shit about what was going on when he was on screen by himself or with his fling.

Aside from those nit-picks, the film was pretty damn good. Im still not sure as to whether or not the film exceeded my expectations, but it definately met them. It served a fairly decent score, a humble acting job by Jodie Foster, some good shots, good editing, an all around good film. Too bad it's not going to make any money due to being given a shitty limited release, and now a shitty expansion run. Mel Gibson regurgitates a chill pill again, and automatically NO ONE is going to flock out to see his movies again? Charlie Sheen anyone? The guy has made more cash in the past year by milking his pathetic psuedo-insanity than most actors in the business. Gibson deserves a proper comeback. Edge of Darkness? Kicked ass. Did okay in the box office. But that's what happens when you dump a movie in January. Give him a good script, a good director (if not him), a good release date, and his career is back on track...

"People love a trainwreck... When it's not happening to them."
- Walter Black (Mel Gibson), The Beaver

7 Deadly Scenes

2011-01-19T05:03:00.017-05:00

This is a list comprised of mostly nit-picky film nerd gripes. And is really only for film nerds. Now, this list doesnt deem every movie bad for being guilty of including some of these nit-picks. Hell, a lot of the movies on this list are some of my absolute favorites, but they are still cliches in film that piss me off.

1. Cops Always Arriving After the Finale

My first gripe is the fucking cops always arriving after the finale or showdown, or what have you. I understand it either makes the third act and conclusion that more personal or intense, without the whole Police force there, but come on, it's just too convenient. But there are some exceptions. Some very good exceptions. For instance, Silence of the Lambs. The absence of the Police is almost a plot device in the third act of that movie. The Police think they have Buffalo Bill's house, but they dont. Leaving Clarice alone in Buffalo Bill's house. Thus making it a pretty damn intense scene. And some people would say Die Hard is guilty of it too, but it's not. At all. The cops definitely get there on time... They just cant do a thing about the situation.

Films guilty of this:

- Lethal Weapon (in which I love)
- The Terminator (not that the cops could do a fucking thing anyway... It's The Terminator)
- Big Trouble In Little China (in which I love)
- Predator 2
- And plenty more...

2. Ground Bullets

This is a kinda' tricky one. Being as I dont have any specific examples to present. But it's something I've seen time and time again. Okay... If you're in a helicopter and you're shooting at your target, and you miss, what are you going to see? You're going to see either a spark (on concrete), a dust cloud (if you're in a desert), or water splashes (if youre target is in water). And I have no problem with that, because it's 100% accurate. What I DO have a problem with is a bullet traveling parallel to the ground, missing it's intended target, and seeing the result of it penetrating the ground, water or what have you. Okay, I get it. The bullet missed the target. But it's not going to fall that quickly from however far away the person is (50 feet, 100 feet, 200 feet). Yes, it depends on the gun. But very few guns used in film are close-range guns (with the exception of shot guns). Like I said, there really arent specific examples. But Im pretty certain you can find movies like Rambo: First Blood Part II (in which I love), Rambo III (in which I also love), and a lot of TV guilty of this.

3. Computer Noises

Now here's one I have PLENTY of examples of. And in fact, this is the one that bothers me the most! I absolutely fucking hate it. So let me elaborate... So you're watching (let me think of a terrible fucking movie guilty of this throughout the whole movie)... Oh that's right! Live Free or Die Hard. Okay, so you're watching Live Free or Die Hard and Justin Long is typing away on the computer (like everyone does in the whole fucking movie), and as he's typing you hear these "processing" noises. Everytime a window opens, moves, minimizes, a message pops up, a message is sent, THERE'S A FUCKING NOISE. I dont care what computer you have, no computer makes those noises. In fact, all the computers being used in "high tech" movies like these should be quieter, shouldnt they? You know, cause they're like... High tech and shit. Bottom line, it's really irritating hearing those noises. It's almost they think were too retarded to know they're using a computer, so they have to give us noises to signal that they are, in fact, using a computer. Suck my ass.

And the movies guilty of this? Virtually every movie made from the mid-90's on.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

4. Dark Blue Filters

Ugh. Fucking dark blue filters. Really, whoever first decided to film a whole movie with this filter. Well... He must be a color blind prick. There are A LOT of movies guilty of this. And some can get away with it. One that comes to mind is Traffic. Why? Because it's used properly and used to suit the story. For those of you who have not seen Traffic, it's one of those quadruple intertwining-story movies. You know, 4 separate stories, inter cut with each other, that all are related towards the end of the movie? I really enjoy that kind of storytelling. Pulp Fiction did that, Sin City did that. It's just a neat concept. But yeah, Traffic uses about 4 filter throughout the whole film. One for every character story. And the dark blue filter used is for Michael Douglas' character. And Im pretty certain they used it for 2 reasons. The first: They needed to differentiate his story from everyone else's (as they did with each other character). And second: I think they wanted to portray Douglas' cold and lifeless world. Especially being that his daughter turns into a meth head.

But back to the cuntplaining, it just doesnt look good at all throughout a full-length movie. Here's an example: Payback. But fortunately, Mel Gibson can save almost any film.

Exhibit A:

5. The Misuse of the Words "Product Placement"

This isn't particularly a gripe I have with movies, as much as it is with the people who watch them. If you're watching a movie, and the movie is reality-based, in the real world, and your character is walking down the street and you see stores with "Coca-cola" signs, and "McDonalds" signs, and logos that you would typically see everyday? That is NOT product placement. But if you're watching a movie about vehicles turning into robots, and all of the sudden you see an XBox turn into a robot while making the signature XBox noise? THAT is product placement. Let me elaborate...

If you're going to make a film with realistic characters in a realistic setting, you NEED logos. You cant walk outside of your house WITHOUT seeing a car brand logo, food logos, etc., etc. It's part of our everyday lives. Believe me, if you took out all the logos of a movie that was, for instance, set in a city... You wouldnt believe how odd it would look. So in reality, you need logos. Now of course, if you have a movie set in todays day and age and the whole damn thing takes place in a pine box (Buried), logos are not completely necessary. THOUGH, there would be a logo on the phone, or the lighter, or his jeans, or his shirt. BUT, it would only be product placement, in my eyes, if they focused on the logo.

Now to the example of ACTUAL product placement. Back to the Transformers example. So, the XBox console gets affected by "The Cube" and it turns into a robot. Already, you have a blatant case of product placement. But what really sells it, is the fact that the sound designers specifically went out of their way to insert the trademark noise you hear in the XBox commercials. THAT is a product placement.

Exhibit A:

6. Slowed-down Scenes Shot at 24 Frames

There are A LOT of movies guilty of this. It's just too sketchy looking. If you want a scene in slow-motion, you shoot it to be in slow-motion. For instance, if you want to have a nice smooth and fluent scene in slow-motion, shoot it in 120 fps (frames per second). Basically, every movie is shot in 24 fps, the higher the frame-rate, the slow the movements. The way I see it, if a director slows down a scene shot in 24 fps, it looks like they didnt know what they were doing while doing the principal photography, and just said "fuck it!" in the editing room, and decided to put it in slow-mo.

Exhibit A:

And the proper way to shoot slow-motion:

... I still love Lethal Weapon considering it's guilty of 2 of my gripes on this list.

7. TV Lines on HD TV's

And the last? Well, Im getting tired of typing so Ill make it quick. First if all, high definition means there is NO grain and NO lines. So why do film makers and editors still insist on putting them on HD TV's? This typically happens when a character is watching a news report, or the news report is on the full screen. It makes absolutely no sense. The latest film I saw that suffers from this is Unstoppable. There's scenes where they cut back and forth to news reports, and the characters are clearly watching HD TV's and there's lines. I understand that 95% of television images, and computer screen images, and anything involving a screen is usually superimposed over a green screen. But do you have to take that extra step to make us aware that its a television?

Exhibit A:

Now at second glance, I see that there are lines on the screen, but there doesnt appear to be any on the titles and logos, which seems to indicate that it would be the camera producing the lines, and not the TV. But to be honest, I dont think that's the case. All news networks have converted to HD and use HD cameras. So at the end of the day... I think I still have something to bitch about. Phew!

Top 5 Films of 2010

2010-12-19T03:48:00.006-05:00

The year of 2010 was a pretty okay year I guess. Nothing like 2008, but a decent year nonetheless. A few let downs, a few as-good-as-expected-or-better films, and some real surprises. Anyway, here you go...

1. The Expendables

Fuck, do I love The Expendables. As I said before, it's not Rambo, but it's as close as it's going to get, in terms of old school action, I think. And what I love is that the term "The Expendables" is already being used as a description word. I've heard about numerous gather-of-stars, "It's The Expendables of __________". It's just nice to know that Stallone has created a new franchise. Do I hope he spends a little more time on the script the next time around? Yeah, it would help. But The Expendables was pretty much exactly what I wanted! And Im extremely happy it did so well opening weekend. $34 million for an R-rated action film? That's great. Especially given that it had very few "new" star power. Yeah, it had Jason Statham. But Jason Statham doesnt really drive box office sales. He has more of a cult following. To read my Expendables review, click here: THE EXPENDABLES REVIEW

2. Edge of Darkness

As I dont like to do with these retarded "Top" lists, I dont like to reiterate what I have already said in past reviews. So I'll keep it short. Edge of Darkness was fucking great. That's really all you need to know. It was a great slow-burn thriller, sprinkled with some action (which is how it should be). It was great to see Gibson again on the big screen. A lot of people would disagree with me, but fuck 'em. To read my Edge of Darkness review, click here: EDGE OF DARKNESS REVIEW

3. Machete

Here's a film that I never got around to review. But Machete was fucking GREAT. This was one of the surprises of 2010. Back in 2007 when Grindhouse came out, the faux-trailers were the best part of the experience (as most agreed). Machete being the best. So when I heard Robert Rodriguez was doing a full-length film about Machete I cringed as if I witnessed Kirstie Alley at a Golden Corral. But then casting news let out and I suddenly got an unwilling smile on my face. Robert DeNiro AND Steven Seagal in the same movie? Fuck. On top of that... Don Johnson? Cheech Marin? FUCK. It sounded too awesome to pass up. Then the trailer hit, and it looked pretty damn cool.

So fast-forward to September, I watched it, and it was fucking GREAT. First and foremost, it was hilarious. The movie could have easily been just balls-out fun. But it was actually hilarious. There are so many scenes where I lost my shit. For those of you who havent seen it, look out for...

- The blood-thermometer
- Any scene with Steven Seagal
- The electrocuting fence demo
- Don Johnson being awesome
- "Machete don't text."
- Cheech's monitor-cross
- Tom Savini's Assassin promo video
- Any scene with Steven Seagal
- "Death By Low-Rider Truck"
- Robert DeNiro as a wetback
- Robert DeNiro's political campaign
- And whole fuck-load more...

I really thought the Machete full-length was going to be a cake's worth of icing on an enjoyable cupcake. But oddly enough, Rodriguez baked a DELICIOUS cake. With JUST enough icing! He successfully made an enjoyable cupcake into an equally enjoyable cake. Kudos.

4. Solitary Man

I had a feeling the Michael Douglas film of 2010 would make it to my list. But I didnt think it would be this one. It's just a shame Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps was a fart cake of a movie. But enough about Wall Street, I talked enough about it HERE.

Solitary Man was a movie I wasnt really looking forward to, but would watch it if I caught it on TV. I ended up renting it with my girlfriend one night, and I actually really liked it (hence why Im kind of writing about it on a "Top 5" list). Douglas was great in it (as usual). Hell, he was great in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (for what you saw of him), but the difference is, Solitary Man was an actual GOOD movie. Another great addition to the film, it reunited Douglas with Danny DeVito, which was great to see. I mean, there really isnt too too much to say about the film, except that it was a nice little surprise. Ill probably pick this up on Blu-Ray in a couple weeks and give it a re-watch.

5. Toy Story 3

"The Boy Are Back In Town". The theme song for two films this summer... The Expendables and a very similar film... Toy Story 3. Okay, Im lying, Toy Story 3 had a few more explosions.

Im actually drinking right now, and losing motivation to write about cartoons, so Ill just say that Toy Story 3 was rad. With Despicable Me being RIGHT behind it.

The Un-Seen List:

Here are a few films that I still have not seen, that would probably make my list...

Shutter Island - I watched the beginning with my buddy, but we were drinking and passed out.

The Killer Inside Me - I heard it's misogynist. Why not?

Inception - A Christopher Nolan film about dreams? I dont think Ive been sober enough this year to see it yet.

The Town - I really enjoy heist films.

True Grit - Coen Brothers? Jeff Bridges? You bet your ass Im there... Just not this year. It comes out on Christmas, and Im fairly certain Ill be too busy to catch it. The ironic thing, Im a manager at a movie theatre. The only thing is, we lost the film to the competing theatre.

Tron: Legacy

2010-12-15T03:19:00.001-05:00

So just the other night, I watched Tron: Legacy and... It wasnt that good.

Im going to start off by saying that I am not really a Tron fan to begin with. And just because I dont like a movie, doesnt mean I cant appreciate it. Tron really isnt that great of a film, but it does have effects ahead of its time. But the sad thing is that they dont stand the test of time. They're extremely dated and elementary. But like I said, thats not to say they werent ahead of their time... Just not this time.

So Tron: Legacy takes place just about 21 years later. And this is one of the strongest parts of the movie, the beginning. I mean, I really dont feel too strongly about this movie as I would a movie I loved or hated. It was just kind of "eh". The beginning sets up enough story to give a fuck about whats going on. But once they enter the "Tron world" I started to lose interest, oddly. I thought the world was going to be mind-blowing, visually. Except that... It wasnt. Did it look really cool? Yeah, it did. But each scene was kind of more of the same. Dark backgrounds, with bright-light highlights. That's really all the movie was 75% of the time. And just about 20 minutes into this world I started to realize why I liked the beginning 15-20 minutes more. Tron wasn't my kind of thing. Im just not into that kind of setting. I thought, from the trailers, I would visually eat this world up, but that wasnt the case. It just got old after a while.

Another let-down was the 3D. I didnt think it was shitty 3D. Not at all. But I was expecting something a little better. Love it or hate it, Avatar has incredible 3D. The best so far. And Tron: Legacy could have rivaled Avatar, but it didn't unfortunately. Though the 3D wasnt spectacular, the visuals were great. There could have been WAY more designs, but I really do want to point out that the visuals were worth most of the budget.

One thing Im reading in reviews is the lack of story. Hmmm... That's not true. There is enough story to serve a Disney movie, let alone... A TRON movie. In fact, one of the only parts I really really liked about the movie was a scene in the middle. Its a scene with Sam and his father Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges). It was actually really well-done. Had all the right elements, great cinematography, score, and performances. But once that scene ended, I went back to the "eh" shoulder-shrugging slouch.

But what I really did like about the movie, through and through, was the score, oddly enough. And Im not saying that in "Im not big on scores" kind of way, because I am a score fanatic. But with this particular score, it was mostly electronica. And I do NOT like electronica. But Daft Punk did a really good job with the score. There were some really catchy themes. Would I buy the score? Nah. Download it? Yeah. But yeah, thumbs up to Daft Punk.

And lastly, I give thumbs up to Joseph Kosinski, the director. Why I am I am giving thumbs up to the director of a movie in which I didnt really enjoy? Because I really didnt notice anything wrong with his decisions that DIDNT pertain to the Tron world. And like I said, I cant give him thumbs down because of decisions he made with a world I didnt like to begin with. For what it was, it was probably a worthy entry. But given that Im not a Tron fan, I really have no voice. I just want to see how he would do with original material.

All in all, go see it for the Pirates 4 trailer... Oh wait, even that was pretty bland (unfortunately, since I love all 3).

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

2010-10-01T00:50:00.003-04:00

"What? Nobody believes in comebacks anymore?" - Gordon Gekko, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Mr. Gekko, I believe in comebacks!.. But when they're good. Unfortunately Gordon, your movie wasn't very good. I really wanted to like Wall Street 2, I really did. I mean, I absolutely love the first Wall Street (Why? Click HERE). But with Wall Street 2, it's biggest problem is that it's a fucking mess. It has potential to be a great sequel, that's for sure. But it just didnt know where to go, and for how long.

The movie started out pretty decent. It gave me nothing to say, "Maybe it'll get better...". No, it was a pretty solid re-introduction to Gordon Gekko and the new characters. But unfortunately, Im not here to talk about what's good about this movie. Because if that were the case, this write-up would be about 3 sentences long.

Now one of the many things wrong with this film, first and foremost, was the story. Now dont think the story wasnt there, because it definitely had enough back-stories and side-stories to create a compelling story. But thats exactly the problem... There were way too many. Fucking way too many. You have Gekko trying to get back in touch with his daughter, Jake (LeBeouf) and Gekko's daughter's story (the majority of the movie unfortunately), Jake and his mentor Zabel (Frank Langella), Jake and his green energy company, Jake and his money-grubbing mother (Susan Sarandon), and literally about 4 or 5 other sub-plots that either go nowhere or nowhere good. It almost seemed like they wrote 4 Wall Street movies and decided to say, "Eh, fuck it. Lets just make it one movie.". But what's even worse than that is that most of the sub-plots revolved around Shia LeBeouf sadly. Ive said it before, and Ill say it again, I dont HATE Shia LeBeouf, but I certainly dont like him. He is what I call as "Studio Golden Boy". Meaning, not a lot of people really like him, but the studios do and they put him in every movie that they know is going to make money, so when the numbers flood in, it looks like its attributed to him. And Ill be honest... I wish I had that little prick's career. That motherfucker has been apart of every franchise that I either worship or love: Indiana Jones, X-Files, Wall Street, Transformers (the first 3 being my nerd dreams). Anyway, back to cunting about Wall Street 2. Yeah, there was way too much LeBeouf I could handle.

The movie should really have been called "Wall Street: Douglas You Never See". I swear, Gordon Gekko has a grand total of 30 minutes screen time. I know he wasnt the main character even in the first Wall Street, but this was absolutely ridiculous. I remember my buddy Phil shouted out 25 minutes in (after they re-introduced Gekko), "Isnt Michael Douglas in this movie?". I immediately thought, "Well dude, its only the first 25 minutes. But then 25 minutes turned into 35, then 35 minutes turned to 45 minutes, you'd see him for about 5 minutes, then he would go away for another 20 minutes. I call bullshit. I mean really, the posters should have credited the actors like so: "Shia LeBeouf, Josh Brolin, with Eli Wallach and a special guest appearance by Michael Douglas". Ugh, fuck things.

And that last thing I want to complain like a child about is the FX and graphics they used. It was pretty ridiculous. There were scenes where you were literally the computer screen they were looking at. You saw the characters from the computer screen's point of view. It was absurd. The first shot (which is in the trailer) looked pretty cool, with all the stock numbers and shit scrolling by. I got it. It was stylish and effective. But then he literally used it for every fucking scene. Either regular computer screens dont exist in Oliver Stone's alternate 2008 and only holograms do, or he just made a really shitty and distracting film making decision. That, and he used these fucking awful elementary-level animated digrams used to describe what Jake's character was investing him time and money in (green energy things and stuff [I kinda forget what they were exactly, due to losing interest]).

There were very few things about Wall Street 2 that I actually enjoyed. Two of which were the cameos by Charlie Sheen and the real estate lady from the first one. But I will give credit where credit is due. Michael Douglas gave another killer performance with some pretty rad lines and phrases (naturally). As did Josh Brolin and Frank Langella. They were all good! But not enough to salvage this film. At times I felt like I was living in a 3-month year old's diaper. It was just so fucking messy.

But this beer is to Michael Douglas getting well. Cancer's a bitch.

The Expendables

2010-08-15T05:55:00.010-04:00

Sylvester Stallone. Dolph Lundgren. Mickey Rourke. Jet Li. Jason Statham. Eric Roberts. Bruce Willis. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Kinda' unfathomable.

Since the release of Rocky Balboa and Rambo, Ive been eager to see where Stallone's comeback, or career resurgence would take him. Now Ill be the first one to say it. The Expendables isn't Rocky Balboa or Rambo good. But that's not to say it isn't fucking awesome. And I guess, in a sense, I am being biased. Rocky and Rambo are pre-existing properties. The Expendables is something brand new (which is great). But with Rocky Balboa and Rambo, there was something to compare it to. And the fact that the 6th and 4th installments in a franchise were fucking incredibly good this late in the franchise (and in Stallone's career), you cant help but to praise those films. Where Rocky Balboa was more so an autobiography of Stallone's career, and Rambo was the best action movie in the past 20 years, The Expendables is just a great ensemble cast action film. Plain and simple.

And now to the actual film. Lets start with the story. I knew going in, that the story was basically a basic bare-bones story. Do I think the story was awful? Not at all. For me, it was enough to move the action along. Now, Ive read in the reviews about people cunting about how much of the story (or lack there of) was just fodder for this ensemble cast. And that may be the case, but it's not a terrible story. There are enough plot points to keep it interesting enough. A team of mercenaries are hired to overthrow a South American dictator and an ex-CIA agent. It turns out to be a giant front... And shit blows up. Would I have liked more story? Sure, but I got what I wanted from a fucking STALLONE action film. I would throw in a sarcastic "Stallone's not an Oscar-winning writer" line in there... But he is. But what people dont realize is that Rocky is not an action film... At all. It's a character drama. Hell, even First Blood is more-so a character drama then an action film. But what Im trying to say is, this is a Stallone action film. Youre going to get explosions, blood, more 'splosions, more blood, even more bullets, some more 'splosions, and maybe even a little... Explosions.

Now that the pesky "story" is out of the way, lets get to the juicy stuff. Like EXPLOSIONS. Id like to see Stallone direct his long-delayed Edgar Allen Poe film. You know, to really test out his directing chops. But for now, Im PERFECTLY content with his direction of action, and his sense for structure and pacing. The two things that Rambo and The Expendables have in common, is the structure. He opens the film with a bang, settles it down for a good 15 minutes, kicks some major ass, settles it down for a couple minutes, kicks some more ass, kicks some MAJOR ass, settles it down for a bit, then ends it with a GIANT FUCKING BANG. The last 20 minutes of Rambo and the last 30 minutes of The Expendables are FUCKING INSANE. Rambo's finale being the better, obviously. But The Expendables finale is only a couple notches below Rambo's.

First of all, these really aren't spoilers. Im not telling you who died or who killed who, but you need some setting up. Stallone is obviously the leader, Statham is a the knife expert, Terry Crews is the bomb-rifle guy, Jet Li is pretty much the stealth guy, from what I gathered, and Randy Couture is pretty much there to fight, I guess. But who I really want to get to is Terry Crews. Here is another example of how similar The Expendables is to Rambo. In Rambo, they use a .50 cal machine gun on people. .50 cal machine guns are supposed to be used on tanks, helicopters, etc. But no, Stallone said, "Let's tear 8-inch holes in people, then blow them apart.". The Expendables? Stallone said, "Let's use bombs like theyre bullets. And instead of using bombs to blow up buildings and vehicles, lets use them like bullets on people.". FUCKING AWESOME. There's a scene where Crews uses his bomb-rifle, with about 20 rounds on the enemy. It was absolutely incredible. And to make it even more incredible, it was all continuous. There are definitely a lot of radical action sequences in The Expendables. The opening pirate boat ship shootout, the scene where they blow up a boating dock, a dirt-road shoot out, the whole end battle, and the Jet Li/Dolph Lundgren scene. I really wish I could get into that scene, like bad, but Im not going to give any major spoilers. Fuck.

Moving onto the music. Stallone used Brian Tyler to score The Expendables. And Im pretty certain I know why. And that's because he did a fucking incredible job handling the Rambo score. And when I say incredible, I mean INCREDIBLE. With The Expendables he did an awesome job as well. I had to download the score due to it not being pressed and shipped to certain stores for some reason. But I listened to it before seeing the movie, and I wasn't overly impressed. With me, if you dont have a strong anchor (which is usually the main theme), I get bored. And I wasnt quite sure why he chose the main theme that he did. But then I saw the movie, and I totally got it. It doesnt cut through music like the Indiana Jones theme would, or the Rocky theme would. It has a very subtle horn section, with the string instruments really driving the theme. It works really well. It's got enough of an emotional anchor to actually feel something when you hear the theme. And once the theme came on towards the end battle, I totally got it. The rest of the score is pretty good too. And like I said, if you have a good main theme, or anchor, you can pick from that periodically throughout the rest of the score (which I personally love) and work from there.

Of course the casting of this movie was it's main driving force. But I gotta say, my favorite (aside from Stallone, obviously) casting in The Expendables was Dolph Lundgren. Ive always said that if I could choose one guy to be a giant action star or whatever, it would be Dolph Lundren. I fucking love Dolph Lundgren. And its so weird because he has done very few films Ive actually liked, but theres something about him that is just so fucking badass. Eventhough he's not a very good actor, the way he plays his roles is just fucking awesome. His role in The Expendables was great too. He pretty much played "the crazy guy with a drug problem". When he'd blow someone up, he'd have the biggest smile on his face, while the other guys are just there for business. Fucking love Dolph Lundgren. And speaking of great casting, Mickey Rourke was a perfect cast as well. He was pretty much the emotional anchor for the film. Which makes complete sense. There's a speech he gives that had me tear up a bit.

And now to "The Scene". When it was first announced, everyone went nuts. And I knew the marketing department was going to go crazy with it. And that is the Stallone/Schwarzenegger/Willis scene. Was the scene awesome? Yes. Yes it was. And I knew it was going to be short. But I didnt expect it to be that short. Regardless, it was a fun scene that gave Schwarzenegger's character some backstory. And Im assuming that's going to be used for The Expendables II (which Im pretty certain is already greenlit due to The Expendables already doing really well at the box office). And Bruce Willis was fucking great in the scene. He was quite hilarious. The scene kind of takes you out of the movie a little bit, but it was still a great scene to have in the movie.

And a little recommendation for the movie: Do not see the movie COMPLETELY BOMBED. I made the big mistake of getting smashed before and during the movie. I literally remember only the first half of the movie. Also, you should have a clear theatre presentation (picture and sound). I am a manager at a family-owned theatre, and I still recommend going out to your local AMC, Regal, etc. It's much more clear and it's louder. I mean, it really all depends on where you go obviously. Some theatres are all digital, some still use film, some have DTS, and some have Dolby Digital. But having seen it a second time, slightly buzzed at the Regal, I can honestly say I love the movie. It really is all about presentation. It affects your initial response to the film (or anything, really).

Is The Expendables a let-down? Not for me it isnt. The reviewers arent being too kind to it (in fact, theyre half and half). But when have they been kind to Stallone with something that wasn't Rocky or Rocky Balboa? All in all, The Expendables is a great first entry to a (possible) franchise that can go on to being another classic Stallone franchise. I can only imagine who theyre trying to get for Expendables II. Either way, Kurt Russell better be at the top of that list. At the VERY top. In fact, he should be hovering over that list. Stallone... Make it happen.

The A-Team

2010-06-13T02:22:00.004-04:00

The A-Team movie. What to expect... Ultra-cheese? Check. Mediocre/Sub-mediocre script? Check. A radical theme? Check. An abundance of ridiculous situations? Check. The movie has pretty much everything you need to make a good A-Team film. Except for one thing... Good character adaptations. Which is #1. I mean, the characters carried the show. Any true A-Team fan knows that the show really only had 1 or 2, MAYBE 3 original storylines. But the characters are what made it so damn fun to watch. Hannibal always had that devil's smile when a plan was forming in his head. Face always had that doubtful/sarcastic charm. Murdock was just awesomely insane. And B.A. was just mean and black.

Now when casting was done for the film adaptation of The A-Team, I was on the fence. Liam Neeson as Hannibal? I can see it. Bradley Cooper as Face? I could definitely see it (though, I have a dislike for Bradley Cooper), Rampage Jackson as B.A.? Sure, why not. And Sharlto Copley as Murdock? Could have potential. But what I found to be the case after seeing the movie, they casted all of them for physical appearance alone. Because the only characters that were done justice were Murdock and B.A. And with B.A. it's not very hard to cast a mean black man as a mean black man. So really, Murdock was the only character who I actually really really liked. Now whether they casted Copley because of the success of District 9 or not, it really doesn't matter. He did a great job. Copley's Murdock mirrored Dwight Schultz's Murdock pretty closely without looking as if he tried harder than he needed to. His facial expressions were spot on. His line-delivery was spot on. He pretty much worked all around.

Having already covered who DID work, lets get to who didn't work... Hannibal and Face. It pisses me off because I remember before seeing the movie, I was pretty certain that Liam Neeson was going to nail the Hannibal character. But that he did not do, unfortunately. Now I noticed that part of it had to do with script. But I put most of the blame on Neeson. He played Hannibal so stiff. He was far too serious. The Hannibal character was more of a lax Joker, in my eyes. He always had a plan... Even when he didn't. When a plan would go to shit, he would make one up as he went along. He had this devilish charm about him. Liam Neeson's Hannibal was just a raspy-voiced stickler... With FAR too many "plans". And what I mean by that is, the word "plan" would come out of Hannibal's mouth at least 3 or 4 times in every fucking scene. And THAT is what I blame on the script, not Neeson. "It's all apart of the PLAN, kid!", "Ive got a PLAN!", "In every situation is a good PLAN!", "PLAN ahead!". I felt as if Neeson's Hannibal should have done life insurance commercials instead of being a Colonel.

Now on to "Shitty A-Team Character Adaptation #2". Bradley Cooper's Faceman. Or rather I should say Bradley Cooper From The Hangover's Faceman. Okay, I get it, Bradley Cooper can play a good douche bag. But there's one minor problem with casting him as Templeton "Face" Peck... FACE ISN'T A DOUCHE BAG. Yes, he might be conniving, manipulative, and cowardly at times. But he always does so in a gentleman fashion. That's just all apart of The Faceman's charm. Bradley Cooper From The Hangover's Faceman? Just a douche bag. No suave. No wit. No charm. I mean, there's a scene with him shooting from a tank while screaming, "COME ON! GET SOME! WHAT YOU GOT!? WHAT YOU GOT?!". Just shut. Your fucking. Mouth. The only time I recall Bradley Cooper doing anything in the Faceman fashion was when he was trying to get a press pass from a really hot Russian news reporter.

And well, B.A... Rampage Jackson played him black and mean. So I guess that's a plus. Also, I understand this is The A-Team in 2008 or whenever the film takes place. And I understand that you have to adapt the characters in a slightly more modern fashion. But do NOT strip away the character's of their signature traits. For instance, I was fine with B.A. cruising while jamming modern rap music (though, Run DMC would have made it that much cooler). But what I am not okay with is taking a suave gentleman-like character and turning him into a douchebag fratboy. You can go fuck yourself there. All in all I was pleasantly surprised with Murdock and B.A., but majorly disappointed with Hannibal and Face.

And now to the director, Joe Carnahan. I think he did an okay job with this film. The action in this was really fucking stupid, ridiculous, but most importantly... It was fun. And that's what the general consensus seems to be. It's a stupid stupid fun time. Now there were some pretty clever ideas put to film here, but most of it was just ridiculous for the most part. And the CGI in those scenes? Most of it was pretty bad (ESPECIALLY at the end where a bunch of loading containers look like giant falling Legos). But on the other hand, some of the CG wasn't too bad. But there wasn't really any scenes where you couldn't tell what was CG and was was not. A practical effect looked like a practical effect, and a CG effect looked like a CG effect.

The music. I just recently found out that Alan Silvestri scored The A-Team. I love Alan Silvestri, I think he has a lot of talent, BUT... Dude hasn't done anything really good in a long long while! Obviously he'll never ever top his Back to the Future score. It's just humanly impossible. But it doesn't mean he still can't create good music. And that's why I dont know why he hasn't scored anything that was any good as of late. I mean, he didn't do a terrible job with his A-Team score, but it wasn't really that good. The only thing he fucking nailed perfectly was the main theme. You hear the original Mike Post and Peter Carpenter theme at the end of the film, but it sounds almost identical, just bigger. Which I have absolutely no problem with. In fact, I think it sounded really good. But I would have liked to see him add in 1 or 2 newer themes to liven it up with. And if he did, then I didn't notice them.

In the end, it was a cool movie. Nothing great. Just a dumb and ridiculous fun time. I'll probably end up seeing it one more time (this time a little more sober), just to see if I feel any different (for better or for worse). Also, this is a minor spoiler. But for fans of the original series who don't usually stay til the end credits of films, Dirk Benedict and Dwight Schultz have cameos. Benedict's is pretty cool. But Schultz's is fucking hilarious.

Why I Don't Remember Clerks II

2010-03-31T00:25:00.004-04:00

So a friend recently asked me on my thoughts on Clerks II. It triggered a relapse in my brain. I was far too drunk to explain the whole thing to him at the time. So instead, I told him to request the story on a message board (that way, I wouldn't have to reiterate myself). And that he did. I posted it, and I guess I thought it was worthy enough to post on here. So yeah, here you go:

Characters:

Branden Hafiz (Guts Spill)
Jack Daniels
Shot Glass
30 Pound Mirror
Clogged Toilet With Piss And Shit
Mother
Brother
Sister

Back when Clerks II came on OnDemand, I was curious, but wasn't even a big fan of the first one. I mean, I like it. But that's basically it. So anyway, I order Clerks II, and sitting by my side was an unopened bottle of Jack, a shot glass, and a mini table. My little rule for the night was: Take a shot everytime I thought something was supposed to be funny, so in fact, I would think it was funny. Sure enough, it kinda' worked. So we finally get to the end of the movie, and I really dont even remember what was going on, I had basically downed almost the whole bottle by the end of the film. Now, I know a lot you guys have probably drank a whole bottle of Jack (or any hard liquor) in a night. But this wasn't in the span of a night, it was in a span of 97 minutes. Now this was back when I only drank hard liquor and didn't even touch beer.

The film ends, I have no idea what I just saw, I get up, and THAT'S when it hit me, my functions, well... They weren't existent. I stumble through my kitchen and into the hallway. In my hallway I have this giant 30 pound mirror hanging on the wall. I look at it, lean onto it, the nail holding it up, came loose, and fell parallel with my back. Literally, the only thing keep it from falling over and shattering was my back. So I "gently" lay it on the floor and proceed to the bathroom. My bathroom toilet? Clogged. There's remnants of piss and shit pretty much caked onto the bowl. But when you gotta' puke, you gotta' puke. I puke into the toilet, thus splattering piss, shit and puke all over my face and shirt. Now fecal matter on the face doesn't really sit well with the brain, so of course I puke even more. It was just a cycle that just kept on repeating and repeating.

Once I stop puking, I look over and there is practically my whole family looking at me to see what's going on. I turn around with puke, piss and shit dripping off of my face, and that's all I remember.

And well, eversince that night, I haven't touched more than maybe 5 shots. I dont drink hard liquor anymore, just beer, beer, beer, as you all know. So yeah, that's kinda' it.

Red, White, and Nothing New

2010-02-01T23:17:00.023-05:00

We all know of some of the typical film poster trends. You have the floating heads posters, you have the orange/blue contrast posters, and plenty of other cliche (not always bad) posters. But there is one in particular that irritates me to no end. And that is what I call the "Red, White, and Nothing New" posters. You'll typically see this type of poster with comedies. I mean, Im all for minimalist posters. But this is not minimalist. This is just plain shit. The formula for the "Red, White, and Nothing New" poster is: White background + promotional photo + large blocky red text = complete and utterly uninspired shit fucking poster.

Now I know it's almost like beating a dead horse cunting about these posters, but they're not even just used for the shitty comedies. Even some decent comedies get the "Red, White, and Nothing New" treatment. So instead of reading about these pathetic and inexcusable hack-job posters, view 'em all below.

Yeah.

Edge of Darkness

2010-01-31T03:23:00.010-05:00

7 years, 1 Jew-rant, and a new hot girlfriend later, Mel Gibson is finally back on the big screen. And to be quite honest, I can't think of any reason why he shouldn't have chosen this film to make his return to acting. Yeah, it's not a gigantic action movie with a budget of 200 million dollars. But it IS a film that calls for all of Gibson's acting chops. Now despite your opinion on Gibson, you cannot deny the fact that he is a fucking incredible actor. And Edge of Darkness showcases another side of Gibson's acting. The role he plays doesn't call for a humorous insane-o, or a full-fledged badass without flaws. He plays Thomas Craven as a completely broken man. He, as he says in the movie, is the guy with nothing to lose. Now, you look at Martin Riggs, and all the crazy, outlandish things he does, they're all out of the charming insanity that he has. With Thomas Craven, he doesn't care what he has to do to get from point "A" to point "B". He just needs to get there. And you can see that in his face and eyes.

For those of you who don't know the synopsis of Edge of Darkness, here it is. Gibson plays a Boston detective whose daughter gets shot right next to him. He was suspected as the intended target, but he doesn't believe that he was. As he tries to investigate who murdered his daughter, he discovers that his daughter was apart of a conspiracy.

Now as far as story goes, it isn't terribly original. I mean, cops' kid dies, cop investigates, cop gets revenge. But the turns and plot points in the story are what stand out in the film. When the project was first announced with Gibson attached, I was amped. But then I found out William Monahan (who had written The Departed) was doing the screenplay. And since this was an 80's BBC mini-series, I knew he would make the film adaptation a good one. I haven't seen Infernal Affairs, but I hear Monahan did a phenomenal job in adapting it with The Departed. And since there was a conspiracy intwined into the story of Edge of Darkness, I was certain he would concoct some rad ideas. And that he did. Now Im not going to really go into the conspiracy aspect of the story, just because they're not really selling the film as a conspiracy movie as much as they are a revenge film. So I'll just let the whole conspiracy be a big surprise for you.

Now as much as they're selling it as a revenge film, they're also trying to sell it as an action movie. And I'll tell you one thing, it's not an action film. It does have a couple action sequences sprinkled throughout the movie. But it's a solid drama. And you know what? Im glad it is. Because the best thing about the film is Mel Gibson's performance. And had this been an action movie, I think his performance would have been lost. I mean some of the most intense scenes in the movie are when they're just focusing on Thomas Craven's face. For instance, there is a scene directly after the scene where his daughter gets murdered. And in that scene, a detective who tries to act like one of his best buddies, tries to act like he gives a fuck. And Craven knows he's full of shit. And in that scene, you're just waiting for him to snap.

Another thing this movie delivered on, was the violence. Keep in mind, it was nothing over-the-top or spectacular, but there was a hefty sum. From his daughter being completely opened up with a shotgun, to some broad being mowed down by a car, to the whole end stand-off, it was pretty fucking bloody. Head shots, chest shots, jugular gashes, and even... Milk. Milk? Yes. Milk. Watch the fucking movie, and you'll understand.

Though, I still believe Gibson carried this film without a doubt. I need to give credit to Ray Winstone. This is a guy whose career didn't pick up until he was about 40 years old. How the fuck did that happen? This dude killed in The Departed as Mr. French. He was pissed, loyal, and cold. And though, I thought he was good in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I didn't like how they wrote his character after his first 15 minutes. He seemed like he could have been a killer sidekick to Indy. But no, they wrote him as the typical greedy rat. All in all, Winstone showcased another radical performance in Edge of Darkness. He played Jedburgh with enough mysteriousness without making the character bland. And he did so by having the perfect balance of dry/dark humor.

All in all, the film succeeds on almost every level. Im not hailing the film as a masterpiece, but it's definately a fucking solid drama. Good story, great performances, and enough blood to keep you satisfied. A nice way to start the year of 2010.

Top 5 Films of 2009

2010-01-02T01:13:00.010-05:00

At the beginning of the year I posted a blog on the films of 2009 (to read, click here: THE FILMS OF 2009). All of which were movies I was either curious about, anticipating, or highly anticipating. Now 3 of those films actually make it onto my top 5 of the year. Now, you can go on almost any website, and they'll have their top 10 lists of the year. And usually I would have mine. But this year is different. There are only 5 that I felt that I really really liked. And Ill start off with my absolute favorite of the year...

1. Avatar

As I mentioned before, I was really looking forward to this film (for more than 2 years). In fact, it was that and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Well turns out that Avatar was fucking incredible. My last blog is an 11-paragraph review on the film, so Im not going to waste my time, or yours, on treading over the same water as to why I love the film so much. But what I will do, is Ill state that Avatar is my second favorite film in that past decade. The first, of course, being Rambo (kinda' a given). But Avatar, to me, kicks everything elses ass. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Yep. King Kong (2005)? Yep. Everything aside from Rambo. I mean, it totally fucking delivered on every level. And to see it performing ridiculously well in the box office makes me happy. I mean, I always get questioned as to why I care about how a movie performs in the box office. And the answer is simple. I like to see movies I like, succeed and do well, and movies I dont, fail and do terribly. And Avatar is doing incredibly well. A 77 million dollar opening weekend, a 75 million dollar second weekend (a record-breaking second weekend), and pretty much an average of 17 million dollars every weekday. It's at 760 million worldwide in just under 14 days. And you know what? The film deserves every dollar it makes. To read my Avatar review, click here: AVATAR REVIEW

2. Drag Me To Hell

Drag Me To Hell is the second film I knew was going to be fucking incredible. And that it was. Once again, I already did a write-up for this film, so I dont want to continuously repeat myself. But when it comes to modern horror films... Well, they still suck a gorilla tit. But Sam Raimi managed to look at every horror movie made past 1995 and do the COMPLETE opposite. It's strange, horror movies nowadays are all moving in the same direction. Each and every one. Yet... They dont even borrow ONE good quality from the good ones. Hell, they even managed to completely fuck up blood and guts. I mean, 85% of it is completely in the computer. Anyway, Drag Me To Hell is a perfect breath of fresh air. It's creepy, dark, evil, and most importantly... It's hilarious. And any Raimi fan knows that all 4 of those words need to be included in a Raimi horror film. Otherwise, it's not a Raimi horror film. To read my Drag Me To Hell review, click here: DRAG ME TO HELL REVIEW

3. District 9

This film was so low-brow when I did my write-up at the beginning of the year, I didnt even include it on the list. I mean, I had heard about it, but I really had nothing to go on, aside from one viral poster mentioning some anti-non-human hotline. Well fast-forward to August, the movie came out, I saw it. And fuck, did that movie kick all kinds of fucking ass. District 9 had a great story (actually quite similar to Avatar's), had incredible special FX (also similar to Avatar's, in terms of photo-realism), and was all-around just fucking well-done. I really hope Neill Blomkamp's career goes off from here. The dude has an eye for science fiction. Almost in that Star Wars worn-down kind of way. And I liked it's use of the Blair Witch/Cloverfield hand-held camera (which I usually hate, but only when it comes to movies that arent going for the mockumentary style). But what was really fucking cool about the movie was, the first half was semi-mockumentary (with location titles etc.), and then once the half-way point is approached, it pretty much turns into a regular theatrical film. I didnt notice it until the second time upon viewing it. I thought that was a nice touch. All in all, Blomkamp deserves all the money and recognition that comes his way. Also, Sharlto Copely (who played the lead Wikus character), he did an incredible job. Had his lines been written for him, and he delivered the same performance, I would have said he did a good job. But 95% of his lines were improvised. Hats off to him. Though... He is playing Murdock in the new A-Team movie, and he better not fuck that up. What will I do if he does? Get mad at him while he's making millions of dollars.

4. Bruno

Hahahaha. Just read the review: BRUNO REVIEW

5. Zombieland

Zombieland kinda' came out of nowhere. That's another one I didn't have on my list. Like, I had seen all these articles and updates on it on all the film news websites I visit daily, but I figured it was just another stupid zombie-comedy trying to cash in on the popularity of Shaun of the Dead. Well, I was kinda' right. It tries to go for the same zombie-humor. But it works. Shaun of the Dead, to me, has more substance. But with Zombieland, it's just a fucking blast to watch. There's just a lot to like about the film. For one, it's title sequence. They used Metallica's "For Whom The Bell Tolls" so perfectly. Im a Megadeth warrior, but the way they used it in that sequence was fist-pounding. It all worked so well with the ultra-slow motion (might have been 120 frames per second or maybe even 144). And I liked its whole use of it's rules. It was basically one long instructional video as to how to survive a zombie apocalypse. It was all-around just a lot of fun. Was it the achievement that Drag Me To Hell was? Or District 9? No. But it was a surprisingly fun comedy with zombies. This is not like Dead Alive or Evil Dead II where it's a horror movie with a lot of comedy. It really is a comedy that just so happens to have zombies in it.

And that's pretty much it for the films that I really really liked. Though, there were a few that I enjoyed, but really, I didnt want to make a top 10 list because I dont feel as strong for the other 5 films as I did for the ones listed above. Those films are Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (review here: TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN REVIEW), Star Trek, Angels & Demons, A Christmas Carol (review here: A CHRISTMAS CAROL REVIEW), and The Hangover. All of which were enjoyable. Some surprisingly better than I expected (Star Trek and A Christmas Carol), and some pretty underwhelming (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen). All in all, Id say that 2009 was a pretty decent year in movies. There was less quantity of quality and more quality over quantity, but I guess 5 fucking rad films is better than 15 alright films.

Avatar

2009-12-21T12:08:00.006-05:00

1995. In 1995, James Cameron wrote a treatment for a film called "Avatar". Avatar was supposed to be on the cutting edge of special FX. And as we all know, the 90's weren't the best years for special FX. Yeah, we had Jurassic Park, but we also had Escape From L.A. James Cameron went onto doing a little film called Titanic. Was the film any good? Barely. But it didn't matter. It made James Cameron (as he said at the Oscars) "King of the World". Afterall, he was director of the highest grossing film of all-time (and that still stands). Fast-forward 12 years and two land-mark films (in photo-realism special FX) later, he's back with Avatar. And without those 2 land-mark films, I dont think Avatar would have hit screens as soon as it did. And what are those two films? Neither he was involved with. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Now, I love Peter Jackson, but Im not a fan of Lord of the Rings. They're just too bland for my taste. But WETA Digital did an incredible job on Gollum. And what WETA did for Gollum in Lord of the Rings, ILM did for Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean. And those two films are what proved to Cameron that the technology was almost there. All he had to do was push it. And that he did. As James Cameron said, with Avatar, they pushed the technology, it pushed back, and they pushed harder. And it shows almost 100% on screen.
　
A couple years back, when I first heard about Avatar I was totally sold. And all I knew was "James Cameron" and "science fiction". There were no pictures, no plot, no interviews, nothing. All there was, was a director, and a return to form. Fast-forward a year later, Avatar's release date was announced. Summer 2008. That wasn't the case. The film was pushed back over more than a year, and there was STILL nothing to be released. Still no pictures or anything. And then they released a couple pictures of James Cameron on set. Which I guess was cool, but really... Who wants that? Show us some stills. And then of course, the Na'vi design leaked online. It looked like... Blue cat people. What the fuck? My anticipation went down a bit, and then the talk of a teaser trailer was circulating. Anticipation went up. The teaser trailer came out. Anticipation went down. Then 20th Century Fox did "Avatar Day" in August, where they played 15 minutes of the film in IMAX 3D. I went, and my anticipation went back up. And then the theatrical trailer was released, and I was fucking ready.
　
Avatar has been my "gold at the end of the rainbow" for this week, so to speak. I mean, Ive been waiting for this film for 2 years now (despite my fluctuation in anticipation-levels), and it was finally here. So the day finally came, and I finally went to see it. In IMAX 3D no less. And all I have to say is fucking A. Well, actually, that's a lie. That's not all I have to say. I mean, Im not going to write two paragraphs leading up to the event, without writing about the actual event. So here it goes...
　
First of all, I already expressed my new profound love for 3D after watching A Christmas Carol in 3D, in my last blog. But within the first 20 seconds of Avatar, you really understand what the movie is going for, in terms of 3D. There are 2 kinds of 3D. There is the gimmicky "comin-at-ya" 3D, and there's the "looking-through-the-window" 3D. Avatar is the latter. When the first 10 minutes of you being amazed as to how fucking incredible the 3D is, when that goes by, you are totally immersed into the film. You honestly dont even notice the 3D (and I say that in the best possible way). I saw this in IMAX 3D, and I say this with 100% honesty... There is NO other way to see it. This film was made to be seen in IMAX 3D. It's unfathomable to me, to see it any other way. I wouldn't see it in 2D, I wouldn't see it in a regular theatre in 3D, I wouldn't see it in 2D IMAX. IMAX 3D. And when it's out of theatres, and on DVD, I have no idea what Im going to do. Of course Im going to buy it. This isn't just a film, it really is an experience. And yes, there are some of those "gimmicky" shots. But to be completely honest, they're really not gimmicky at all. When an Amp-Suite is smashing down a tree, it makes sense that wood shards would fly towards you. When bullets are flying through the air, and their target is past the camera, it would make sense that the bullets would be flying past you. It all works, because most of the "comin-at-ya" shots are literally 45 minutes apart from each other. And there's only about three or four noticeable ones.
　
Now due to the 3D technology really not being enhanced, and just being used correctly, Ill get to the main focus of the movie. The FX. As I already mentioned, I wasn't too fond of the alien designs before. And it's not that Im not fond of them now (because they're nothing spectacular), but the difference between what I thought of them now, and then is... I understand WHY. And it's the story. This movie is a lot of things in one. It's a message (without being too forceful), it's a commentary (without being to direct), but most of all, it's a love story. Now Ill get into the whole story originality later. But for now, I want to go in depth as to why the alien designs suit the story. You'll find a lot of producers and people who are trying to sell a movie always talk about "it's all about the story...". And 9 times out of 10 they're leaking sacks of diarrhea. But the alien design actually does suit the story. In a nutshell, the synopsis of the movie is, an ex-Marine joins a program in which his brain and consciousness is linked to a synthetically-grown Na'vi body to learn from the inside. Except, he falls in love with another Na'vi, and realizes the true soulless intentions of the corporation that he's working for. Now had the Na'vi and his synthetically-grown body had been this cool, badass-looking alien, I dont think the emotion-factor would have been there. I honestly think why I felt emotionally-linked with these characters, is because they shared a physical resemblance. And that is why the special FX are known as "ground-breaking", "game-changing", and "revolutionary". It's because they are photo-realistic. Now there is a difference between "real-looking-CGI" and "photo-realistic". The T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park is "real-looking-CGI", but the faces in Avatar are photo-realistic. Now, not all the shots and scenes in Avatar are photo-realistic, but when it comes to all the close-ups of Jake and Neytiri, they are so unbelievably real. And the fact that they can put Davy Jones to shame, it makes me wonder where we'll be at in 10 years.
　
To venture further into the movie's FX, Id like to compliment another aspect of the film. And that was the bioluminescence scenes at night. James Cameron created a world that was very familiar, in terms of science fiction and fantasy, but he twisted it. And one of the most beautiful touches he added was the night time bioluminescence. It was fucking gorgeous. And that is the one prime example that I would give, as to why you NEED to see this movie in IMAX 3D. It's a prime example that proves that the movie doesn't rely on IMAX 3D, but it sure as fuck enhances the experience times 100. To avoid any minor spoilers, Im not going to go into all beautiful sequences that occur in those scenes. But they are fucking incredible.
　
Now Ive read plenty of reviews on Avatar, and I think, in terms of story, theyre either giving it too much credit, or not enough credit. The movie is not completely original... Like at all. But it doesn't lack a story, that's for damn sure. It's a combination of stuff you've seen. But it blends it in a way that it works enough for you to give a fuck as to what's going on. Like I said previously, it has messages, it has commentaries, and it has a love story. All of which work.
　
The score. One of thee most important players to any movie for me, is the score. The score to this film is really good, fluent, and overall, well-written. But what the fuck would you expect from James Horner? Now eventhough James Horner had worked with James Cameron before Mel Gibson, I still think James Cameron gets Mel Gibson's sloppy seconds. In 1995, James Horner did the score for Mel Gibson's Braveheart. Braveheart had those unforgettable and trademark bagpipes. Come 1997, James Cameron used Horner for Titanic. What was Titantic known for? It's use of bagpipes. In 2006, Gibson used Horner for Apocalpypto. And the one key element that stood out on that score was the native's vocal track. It was almost a sigh/hiss. Well... Come 2009, what is one of the most re-occuring sounds for Avatar? The native sigh/hiss. But you know what? It doesnt distract me too much from the score itself. Because the main theme is fucking beautiful. It has a sci-fi sound to it, but it's predominantly fantasy. As queer as it sounds, it's got a sense of "wonderment" to it. I hate that word. Like, a lot. But it's the first and only word that comes to mind when I hear the theme. But overall, the whole score is great. Though, I did hear a few ques from Braveheart and King Kong (2005). Also, the battle themes are blood-pumping. Id love to go into all the battle themes, but there would be too many spoilers revealed (one of which involves a Na'vi jumping onto an aircraft carrier and destroying all the Marines).
　
The end battle. Dont cunt at me, you knew there was going to be an end battle. That's hardly a spoiler. The battle is fucking KILLER. Im not going to give too much away in this 20-minute radically awesome battle, but there's: guns the size of school buses, Amp-Suits (Mother-Loader-like suits), dragon-on-aircraft action, dragon-on-helicopter action, 3 dragons-on-aircraft action, animal-on-Amp-Suit action, fire, more fire, dragons-ripping-out-Marines-from-Aircraft action, 3 dragons-ripping-out-Marines-from-Aircraft, and a lot more. Also, Col. Quaritch is DIRECTLY from Aliens. This dude is BAD. ASS. And I dont mean that in a "oh-this-is-a-new-guy-trying-to-become-an-action-icon" kind of way. This dude is genuinely badass. Stephen Lang, look into him. He auditioned for Aliens back in '85, FYI.
　
All in all, Avatar EXCEEDED my expectations. Was it a flawless movie? No, it wasn't. Has Avatar changed movies forever like they said it would? No, I dont think so. But is it a landmark? Yes. A giant landmark.
　
Also, you ever notice all James Cameron's films either start with the letter "T" or "A"? The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, True Lies, Titanic, Avatar. Piranha 2 doesn't count. Fuck off.

A Christmas Carol

2009-12-21T12:03:00.005-05:00

Alright, when I first heard about this, I had no anticipation whatsoever. And to be quite honest, up until 4 hours ago, I had very very very little anticipation. I mean, I love Robert Zemeckis. But lets face it, dude hasn't done really anything really really really good since 1990. I mean, Death Becomes Her was hoot and a holler (yes, I used that phrase) when I was a kid, but Ill never watch it willingly again. Forrest Gump, I was never really a fan of. Contact was alright, I guess. What Lies Beneath I heard was awful. And Cast Away I actually did like. But like I said, it wasn't really really really good. And now, 5 years later, we get Robert Zemeckis' 3 motion-capture films. Ill outright and say it, Ive never seen The Polar Express. Didn't look bad, just never saw it. But Beowulf was terrible. Now, Im not certain as to why I really hated it. Whether it was that... It was a pile of shit. Or was it that... I was at my theatre until 3 in the morning splicing together a film that I dropped in the projection booth, and THEN decided to have my own little screen of Beowulf at 4 in the morning? To be quite honest, I think the movie just blew. Well before I get too off-track before I even start this little write-up, I walked into the theatre tonight on the opposite side of the "3D motion-capture" fence. And I walked out... Inside the fence.
　
First off, Ive never seen a 3D feature film in theatres. Ive seen those 20-minute 3D shows that they have at Universal and Disney and whatnot, but Ive never seen a feature-length film in 3D. And ignorantly, Id bash any 3D film that would come out recently (from late 2007 and on). But I did so with good reason, I think. When I think "3D", I think cheap, gimmicky, just-for-3D shots. But what stuck in my head since this past June, was what John Lasseter (Pixar head honcho) said about UP in 3D. He said that they use it to submerse yourself into that world. To make you feel as if you're in that world. And when I watched A Christmas Carol tonight, I felt as if I was actually in the room at times. And during those moments, I thought of what John Lasseter had said. And from that moment on, I had a new love for what is 3D.
　
Now this write-up isn't so much a praise for A Christmas Carol, as much as it is a write-up for just the experience as a whole. I mean, the night started off shitty in the first place. First of all, no one wanted to go (understandable). But I said fuck it, and figured Id spend a night with myself, Nerd Rope, Peanut M&M's, Now and Laters, popcorn, and Coke. Secondly, I locked my keys in my car (in which I had to call my dad to pick up my mom's keys from the house). But then, I saw the first trailer in 3D, and it was incredible. The movie looked ass, but the 3D looked phenomenal. And then the movie started. I remember I saw Capitalism: A Love Story with my sister a couple weeks back, because she wanted to. And there was this guy, all alone laughing at all the stuff that Micheal Moore was saying. But not just laughing, laughing as if he wanted to let everyone know Michael Moore was telling lies or something (probably was, but I couldnt care less). Anyway, the guy looked pathetic and crazy. And Im fairly certain that is what the family 2 rows behind me thought when the opening titles came up for A Christmas Carol. I literally said aloud stupid shit like "that looks fantastic!", and "that looks incredible!". I was just so amazed as to what I was missing out on these couple years. And that was just the opening titles. And all of the "gimmicky" shots that wouldn't have been in the film had it not been 3D... Well, they didnt bother me. I think due to the film being all motion capture animation, the level of realism and reality played well with the "gimmicks". I mean, if The Coens did a 3D live action movie and threw those gimmicks in there, there would be a major problem. But with animation it works. So my number one gripe with 3D was out the window. My second gripe isn't with 3D, but with motion capture. And that is the stiffness of the animation. I remember in Beowulf, there was so much stiffness with the arms, the legs, the necks, all of that. Everything in Beowulf moved like the disguised alien woman in the White House in Mars Attacks. But A Christmas Carol didn't have that problem so much.
　
Okay, Ive heard some people complain about the photo-realism of this film. And clearly, they need to fuck themselves in the face. This movie did not go for the fully for photo-realism. I dont know how you figure that complaint could stick to a film like this. This film was meant to be semi-cartoony. Not fully, but there are certain aspects of the film that are definitely meant to be cartoony. Now Beowulf? Complain all you want, because it was meant to be all photo-realistic, and it wasn't. It was stiff and totally bad. But A Christmas Carol certainly succeeded in what it was going for. But there are 2 scenes, or sequences that I thought were fucking incredible. The first being with The Ghost of Christmas past. There is a scene where Scrooge has blasted off into the sky, and his metal flame-coverer dissipates into glowing purple, yellow, and blue dust, and he's falling in front of the moon, I thought that was an INCREDIBLE scene to see in 3D. And the second is the sequence with The Ghost of Christmas Present, where Scrooges living room floor becomes translucent. I thought that was phenomenal.
　
Now it may sound as if Im praising the film. But really, Im not. Im praising the experience. This is my first of the whole slew of 3D films to come out in the past 2 years. So once I see maybe 3 or 4 more, I can step back and really look at what "good 3D" really is. I mean, Pixar's UP is one of highest rated films of all-time, and yet I hear the 3D was okay. But then I hear the 3D in My Bloody Valentine was great. And that movie looked like dogshit. So Im hoping to catch a good film, with good 3D. And I THINK A Christmas Carol is that. Definitely the most fun I had out of all the Christmas Carol movies. I still think Scrooged is the best. With Patton's A Christmas Carol right behind that (eventhough I havent seen that since middle school). But until I get a few more films in, I wont be able to separate the experience from the film. I had a fucking great time.
　
Now... My Avatar anticipation is in full-gear.

The Only 5 Movies of 2010 That Im Anticipating

2009-12-21T11:48:00.004-05:00

I thought 2009 was pretty bland (though it did have a few surprises here and there), but 2010 has almost nothing. At least the summer of '09 had some really rad movies (Im going to do a write-up at the end of the year), but this summer looks terrible. All the movies that I want to see are either before or way after the summer. The 5 movies below are really the only movies I really really really want to see. Everything else I glanced at either just look cool (The Wolfman) or bland (Iron Man 2).

And now the list:
　
1. The Expendables
　
Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mickey Rourke, Jet Li, Jason Statham. Holy. Fucking. Hell. I think you're going to have to apply to get a licence to see this movie. That's how high Stallone has set the bar with The Expendables. Now when the news first let out, I was definately on board. Stallone, Jet Li, and Jason Statham? Cool. I mean, Ill be honest, I hate Jason Statham. I dont like him one bit. He's got no personality, charisma, or intensity about him. But I do like the idea of Stallone getting him to draw in some of the more "modern" action fans. And Jet Li is just really cool. So that was announced, and then Mickey Rourke was signed. Again, really fucking cool. And then my anticipation for this film went into fucking overdrive when... Dolph Lundgren was announced. Now, I know Lundgren hasn't done anything good since the 80's, but I dont care, I fucking love Dolph Lundgren. And Im so happy he's going to be on the big screen again, instead of a $5 cheap-o straigh-to-video bin.
　
But then The Expendables took a slight nose-dive. And I dont mean they casted someone really embarrassing (well 50 Cent was on board for like a day, then couldnt do it). But Kurt Russell was offered a role, and unfortunately, he passed. I slapped 26 babies because of this. But of course, EVEN MORE casting news was announced, and sent The Expendables on the right track. It was announced that Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to have a cameo as a retired Lieutenant. FUCKING. A. AND THEN... Bruce Willis was confirmed. Go fuck me. Now I know everyone has compiled a list of dream festivals, movies, and such. When I go to the IMDb Expendables page, I swear it's the exact page I would have fucking made. Just the fact that John Rambo, John McClane, and The Terminator will all be in the same frame together, it's unfathomable. And yes, it's confirmed that Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger will all be in the same scene.
　
Oh yeah, and the story? Well, Stallone is head-leader of a group who call themselves "The Expendables", and they go to South America to overthrow a brutal dictator. But then there's some double-crossing with the C.I.A. in which Eric Roberts' (I totally forgot about him!) character is head of. And that's basically it. All in all, this movie has the potential to be one of the greatest action movies to ever be captured on film. And the date push-back from April to August shows faith from Lionsgate, which is a good thing. Push-backs are usually a bad sign, but they're pushing it to a better date, so I can't complain. The Expendables opens August 20th, 2010.
　
2. Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps
　
I remember the first time I watched Wall Street, I was so intrigued, and uber-curious as to how this was all going to end. And what I noticed once it did end, was that there is absolutely no physical violence throughout the whole film, all up until the scene in the park with Bud Fox and Gekko. My point is that, before watching Wall Street, I expected maybe a couple gun shots somewhere, maybe a short little cat and mouse chase, a brawl, and maybe a murder here or there. But I didnt realize that there was none of that until hours after watching it. Which shows to me how good of a fucking film Wall Street is. I never thought Id give a shit about a movie pertaining to the doings and dealings of hedge funds and stocks, but Douglas' portrayal of Gordon Gekko is just that fucking good, that it gels it altogether so well. Stallone has his two iconic characters, well Douglas has his two as well. Gordon Gekko and D-FENS. And both make those movies that much better. Because Ill admit, Im not a huge fan of Oliver Stone or Joel Schumacher (well, no surprise there). But both of Douglas' characters, and the way that he plays them, they just really make the movies work. Anyway, onto Wall Street 2...
　
It's going to be great to see Douglas as Gordon Gekko again. Ive seen set photos, and he looks badass. No slicked back hair yet, but I can only hope. Yeah, the movie's got Shia LeBeouf (which I dont hate, but Im still not a fan of him), Josh Brolin, Frank Langella, and Susan Sarandon. And this movie's basis is all of the bank hijinx going on. So I can only imagine what Gekko's going to do. But Wall Street 2 basically picks up with Gekko out of jail, LeBouf is dating Gekko's daughter (which he had to have RIGHT before going to jail. I dont get how theyre going to work that in, because he had a son in the movie). Im definitely on board for this, though. Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps is due out sometime in April, I think.
　
3. Shutter Island
　
Holy shit, was that trailer fucking nuts. I love all of Scorsese's gangster pictures. Casino, Goodfellas, The Departed, and so on. Well maybe not Gangs of New York (if you want to consider it a gangster picture). But it's nice to see Scorsese do something completely different. I mean, he's done enough non-gangster films, but this looks totally different than anything he's ever done. Now what worries me is, the push-back that this movie got. It went from October or November (Oscar season) to February. And that's not a good sign at all. But if the movie is anything like the trailer (which was really well put together), than Scorsese has another gem on his hands. One of the reasons that Paramount is saying they're pushing it back is that they dont have enough money to market it right now. Which is complete bullshit. If they didn't have enough money to market Iron Man or Indiana Jones or any of their other big blockbuster films, they would come up with the money. I just think that they're not satisfied with the close-to final product. It's probably too "strange" or "weird" for them. I dont know, I just know that Paramount has the money to market the film, and that they're fucking liars.
　
For those of you who don't know what Shutter Island is, it's about this detective (Leonardo DiCaprio) who goes to this insane asylum on this island (I guess like an Alcatraz, but a loony bin instead of a prison), and he gets checked in as a patient or something. I dont know, I just know that from the trailer, it looks like the movie's going to fuck with your head a lot. Shutter Island comes out on February 19th, 2010.
　
4. The Edge of Darkness
　
This movie is Mel Gibson's return to acting (I think it's been 6 or 7 years). From what I've gathered, it's a smaller drama film. But the whole creative team is pretty impressive. I mean, you have Martin Campbell who directed Casino Royale (which was really good), and William Monahan who did the screenplay for The Departed (which I would have lost my mind writing). And then of course, Mel Gibson. It's actually based on a British TV series in the 80's called "The Edge of Darkness", in which Martin Campbell actually directed a few episodes. Basically Mel Gibson plays a homicide detective, his daughter gets killed, he finds out some shit about her, there's some government conspiracy, and Mel Gibson fucks people up. To me, it sounds like a cool return to acting. The Edge of Darkness comes out January 29th, 2010 (kinda' a shitty date).
　
5. Tron: Legacy
　
This movie just looks fucking cool. I wasn't an uber-fan of Tron. I mean, it's cool. But with todays technology, and the basis of Tron, I think this movie is going to blow the first one out of the water. The 3-minute teaser they released online looks like a lot of fun. The visuals look really fucking good, the sound design was really fucking good, and best of all... Jeff Bridges is fucking back. Probably drunk as hell, too. I know Im pumped. Tron: Legacy comes out December 17th, 2010.

Semi-Retro-Appreciation: Rocky Balboa

2009-12-21T11:45:00.003-05:00

Now I know that Rocky Balboa was only 2006. But that movie is TOO fucking good. For a while now, I've wanted to do a write-up on it. And I have enough free time right now. So fuck it.
　
Believe it or not, I wasn't always a die-hard Stallone fan. There was a point where I chose Schwarzenegger over Stallone (though, I was a kid). And I remember watching the news in the summer of '06, and seeing Stallone in Philly spreading the word that they were doing another Rocky. My first thoughts, "Oh god, are you serious?". I mean, all I really really liked from Stallone, at the time, was Rambo. I've always loved Rambo. From the first time I saw First Blood on TV, I was hooked. But Rocky? Not so much. Then came the winter of 2006...
　
I remember the Wednesday it came out. I was working at the theatre, and my manager comes in acting like Rocky the whole day. It was actually rather annoying. But still amusing. Anyway, so once I got off work, I figured id check it out, just out of curiosity. I missed the first 20 minutes, but I kinda' understood what was happening. It was okay so far, but then it gets to the scene with Paulie in the meathouse, talking about "the stuff in the basement", and all of the sudden... I started to cry. From that point on, I was intrigued. The movie ended, and I was amazed, impressed, shocked, but most of all... I felt bad. I had been bashing Stallone all these months, and he delivers such a well-crafted movie.
　
Why did I feel bad? Because Rocky Balboa was basically an auto-biography of Sylvester Stallone. Not only did Rocky Balboa make you vulnerable to Rocky, but to Sly as well. Im sure Stallone didnt try to hide the fact that Rocky Balboa was a disguised auto-biography of him. I mean, look at Rocky Balboa. It's about a boxer that started with barely anything, got everything, then lost most of it. That is the life story of Stallone. I wont get into pre-actor Stallone (just watch his Inside The Actor's Studio interview), but from the peak of his career to where he is now, that was Rocky III to Balboa. Look at Stallone after Rambo: First Blood Part II... Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot, Demolition Man, Judge Dredd, Get Carter, Driven? All terrible movies. He fell off the wagon. But a shot of reality entered his brain. Rocky Balboa.
　
Stallone always said he was never happy with the bookends of Rocky V and Rambo III (eventhough, I love Rambo III). So I know the idea for another Rocky was always in the back of his head. But Im so glad he waited as long as he did. With the 90's came real cheese. And not the fun cheese that came with the 80's. Just real bad unenjoyable cheese (IE Judge Dredd). And Rocky Balboa is as realistic as could be. The way the franchise was going, and went, it needed a 6th film. Rocky II was another Jaws 2 (the same thing, basically. Good, but not as good). Rocky III was just not good. Rocky IV was fun, but not a true Rocky film. And Rocky V just blew horse-dick. And Rocky Balboa was the only Rocky sequel to capture the spirit of the first film.
　
And now to the film...
　
There is just so many things to love about it. The honesty of it, being my number one. It really goes back to the first Rocky. It feels just like the first one, without being a rehash. He really closes the book on the series. It's evident that he learned from past mistakes. He used an all-traditional score. There werent any talking robots. There werent freeze-frames for every scene. It was a genuine film.
　
Though, one thing did piss me off. And it wasn't the film. It was SOME of the fans. "It was good, but they should have gotten Adrian.". What?! The absence of Adrian is what made the film GREAT. Not because Adrian wasn't a good character. Because I loved Adrian. But the loss of her was what gave the movie it's tone. Let's put it this way... Say Adrian was still alive in Rocky Balboa, and the movie was exactly the same, but minus the Adrian-death mentionings. You wouldn't feel NEARLY as bad for Rocky as you did. Due to the fact that it would just feel like he lost an old career or hobby. But because boxing was ALL he really ever had, it made it that much more meaningful.
　
Truth is, Stallone restored faith in all comebacks for me. Rocky, Rambo, Indy (despite the critical response, most of you know where I stand), Die Hard (eventhough it blew hard [no pun intended]). Rocky Balboa not only gave me a boost in confidence in movies again. But in life in general. Corny as fuck, I know. But I call you a FUCKING LIAR if you watch Rocky Balboa and continue throughout your day not feeling a little better about yourself.

Bruno

2009-12-21T11:41:00.003-05:00

Jesus. That's pretty much all I can really say about Bruno at this point. The movie succeeds on almost every level. I mean, when I wasn't laughing (which was rare for it's 88-minute duration), I was looking back at the uncomfortable audience. When I got there, I was certain I wasnt going to get a good seat. But I ended up sitting not too many rows past the first row, where the floor seats are. During every awkward dick joke, during every overly-homosexual gag, the audience behind me was sitting there in a daze, with not a smile to be seen. And you gotta' remember, this wasn't a regular post-matinee crowd. This was the midnight showing full of people anticipating the film.
　
Bruno, much like Borat, has quite a few scripted parts in the beginning. But that's fine, because they use 'em to get real reactions from people. So it has an even balance, as opposed to him going out into America with no plans and just act uber-homosexual. The scripted gags are hilarious, anyway. All I can say is: Bruno + wine bottle + asian boytoy + anus. Also, even the structure parallels Borat's structure. But once again, I dont mind. I mean, I cant cunt about over-used structures, when one of my favorite franchises uses the same structure throughout all four films... Indiana Jones. Speaking of which, Harrison Ford makes a cameo... Sorta.
　
Anyway, I dont want to give away too much, so Im going to make this review much shorter than I usually would. I dont think many people realize, but Sacha Baron Cohen is a comic genius, and he needs to be recognized more for it. When the Ali G show came out, I fucking hated it. I saw like 15 minutes and I shut it off. And I still stand on that. I still hate Ali G. That character just isn't funny. But what he has done with his two far more superior side-characters is comic gold. And Im not just talking about him doing those characters justice. Im talking about how Cohen has pushed the envelope. As I said, you may not notice, but what that man has gotten away with is unbelievable. I mean, fuck, you see almost 20 seconds of waving fully-erect penis, in a close-up shot, in an R-rated movie. I've read a couple books on the MPAA, and I thought I understood how the MPAA worked, but really, I dont think anyone has a grasp on how they operate anymore. You can show a waving erect-penis (in a close-up shot, mind you) for 20 seconds in R-rated Bruno, but you cant say a mere "motherfucker" ONCE in a PG-13 Live Free or Die Hard (which sucked anyway)? Oh yeah, that's right, you can say one "fuck" in a PG-13 film, but it cant have any sexual connotation to it. Eat my taint.
　
Anyway, back to Bruno, if you saw Borat and liked it, Im sure you'll love Bruno. If you saw Borat and hated it, just go waste your money on I Love You, Beth Cooper this weekend. And another thing I wanted to address, I always hear people go, "All Sacha Baron Cohen is doing is making fun of Americans, it's insulting.". Really, study the difference between mockery and exploitation. Borat/Bruno does nothing to make fun of Americans... We do it ourselves. He just so happens to make millions and millions and millions of dollars by doing so. And you know what? Im okay with that, only because middle-America is that stupid and deserves to be exploited.
　
Im not quite sure what audience is better to see it with. The ones clearly enjoying the film through laughing. You know, the ones who are able to take a joke? Or the ones who are clearly uncomfortable.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-12-21T11:33:00.004-05:00

Okay, let me first start off by saying... This is a Michael Bay film. That being said, when you go to see a movie with the word "Transformers" in it, I wonder, what are you expecting? All I have been reading is nothing but bad things about Revenge of the Fallen, yet the same people praise the first film. I loved the first Transformers, but I aside from running time (which I didn't mind at all), and a few Jar Jar Binks-esque characters, the films dont differ too drastically.

2009 doesnt really hold too too much for me, in terms of anticipation. For instance, Transformers and James Cameron's Avatar are the top films Ive been anticipating, but not even nearly as much as I had for Rambo and Indiana Jones last year. But I was still anticipating Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen quite a bit. And I got exactly what I wanted. A quadruple dozen robots bashing the fuck out of each other across the globe. What did I get? Exactly what I just said. Yes, I had a few gripes with the film, but did it really matter to me after the fucking HOUR-LONG battle in Egypt? FUCK NO. That was insane.

Everyone instantly knew that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was going be way bigger than the first, due to it being a Hollywood sequel... Directed by Michael Bay. In terms of scale, this is the biggest movie ever made. It's ridiculously awesome. The movie was done with a 195 million dollar budget, but I could have sworn it cost way more to make. The CGI (as it was in the first) was fucking incredible. Not one sketchy frame in the film. Ive said it before, and Ill say it again... Transformers (2007) has THEE best CGI in any movie. And that's a fact. You can freeze-frame any transformation scene, and you will see a completely photo-real rendering job. The same goes for Revenge of the Fallen.

Now all the critics and most of the fans' main complaint about this film is, "The story was absurd! The pacing was slow! And it was too long!". Once again... Michael. Bay. Film. The story? The story is no more than it should be for a fucking Transformers film. There was enough story to drive a thousand awesome global-action sequences. The pacing, I thought, was fine. It's not like it was slow at all. The only problem I found, was the structure. And Im not even sure exactly where the structure goes wrong, but it just felt weird at times. And it's length did not bother me. If it bothers you, LEAVE THE FUCKING THEATRE. Really, if a film is running too long for you, and it's almost unbearable, then fucking leave. There was not one scene I was really bored with, so I cant really complain about the running time.

There were definitely more than enough action sequences to keep my dick hard. I mean, you have the whole Optimus Prime entrance fight scene in Japan, the forrest battle, and the whole end battle. And there's little battle sequences sprinkled in between all of them. So there was definitely enough robot action for one nerds skull. My favorite complaint of the series is, "With all the fighting, you dont even know who's who!". That is why I love it so much. It's just a chaotic, shiny, clanky, mechanical mess! It's fucking great. I love almost having seizures due to action-overload.

Now I do have quite a few gripes with the film. One, er... Two being Skids and Mudflap. Skids and Mudflap were uber fucking annoying. You know, they're the two twin ebonics-talking robots? Now, as I do hate the two characters, when I got home, I grew an appreciation for them. And because? Well, because of Harry Knowles of Aint It Cool News. When I read his review of Revenge of the Fallen, he was deeply offended. Because his nerd dreams were crushed? No, not a mention of that. He was offended due to the stereotypes brought upon Skids and Mudflap and other characters. Haha, what a cunt. I dont know about you, but the title of his review makes me love the film even more "Transformers 2 is foul-mouthed, racist & misogynistic!". Hahaha! Really, grow a dick. But yeah, all in all Skids and Mudflap were my only main gripes of the film. I mean, Im walking into a Michael Bay action film based on action figures... I expect to leave my brain at the door. But those two characters were just really irritating and corny. Another gripe was the lackage of The Fallen and Devastator action. I felt The Fallen could have battled a bit more, but whatever. Though, the Devastator transformation sequence more than makes up for his amount of screen time.

One surprise from the first film, for me, was the score. I was surprised how good and memorable it was. The first time around, I didnt really notice it. But when I saw it loaded in IMAX, that's when I noticed it. I had never heard of Steve Jablonsky before (eventhough his previous works are pretty ass [Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake]), but I was impressed with what he did with the first films' score. Though, I knew there was something familiar that I liked. Turns out, he is a protege of Hans Zimmer, so there you have it. But when he was announced to score Revenge of the Fallen, I was relieved. The score for Revenge of the Fallen isn't really anything new. It's got a few new themes here and there, but all in all it's a pretty decent score. I just really like his useage of the main Transformers theme throughout the film. It really makes my want to wrap myself up with tin foil and battle everything.

Bottom line, I dug the film a lot. And I dont really see how someone who loves action wouldn't. Does the movie have a great story? No. Does the movie have great acting? No. Does the movie have incredible structure? No. But really, what the fuck do we go to these movies for, especially when it's a Michael Bay film? The action. And that's 80% of the god damn movie. Im not making "excuses" or defending anything. If you want to see a dickload of robots destroys each other all across the planet, then fucking see this. It's as plain and simple as that. Now if you hated the first one, you'll definitely hate this one. But if you liked the first one, chances are that you might like or love this one. Was the first film better? Sure. But only because they had to establish everything still (which usually hurts a film, making it feel nothing more than a "set-up" film). But it actually helped the first film. Due to them trying not to cram too much shit in one film. But with Revenge of the Fallen, I feel as if they thought they established all they needed, and just wanted to have an orgy of nerdgasm battles left and right. And Im so glad they did.

Retro-Appreciation: Close Encounters of the Third Kind

2009-12-21T11:26:00.005-05:00

Close encounter of the first kind: Sighting of a UFO. Close encounter of the second kind: Physical evidence. Close encounter of the third kind: Contact.

My love for this film grows more and more the more I think about it. There is something about it that just captures me. Up until about a year or so ago, I had never seen the movie in FULL. I had always missed the beginning and caught the movie from 20 minutes in and on. Im not sure if everyone else is like me, but if I miss even just 3 minutes of a movie, Ill feel as if I had never seen it. It's weird, but that's just how I am. So when I finally bought the movie, I felt relieved that I was going to see it in full.

First let me start off by saying that since I was a kid, I had always thought that E.T. and Close Encounters could be in the same town. Eventhough E.T. takes place in California and Close Encounters takes place in Wyoming, they still have a similar looks and tone. They're both in a desert/mountain area. It just feels as if they could be in the same universe. And it's not just because of aliens. They really do a fantastic job on setting the tone and mood in both films.

Close Encounters also has that, hell Ill fucking say it, magical feeling to it. I dont find too many films "magical" (Awesome? Yes. But not usually magical), but this film gives you that overall feeling that you really cant pin-point or explain, you just FEEL it. I mean, the whole end sequence is fucking amazing. It really does make you feel more optimistic about things. At least it does for me. It has a sense of uncertainty to it. That might sound like a bad thing, but it basically says, "Yes, this is a movie, and no we're not trying to MAKE you believe. We're trying to give you the sense of not knowing what is really out there.". When the movie's credits roll with the spaceship in frame, I literally sit there dazed as to what I just saw. And that's every time (Ive watched it at least 5 times in the past 3 months, and that's not even including the 3 times tonight).

What also adds to this movie is the casting of Richard Dreyfuss. He just adds so much to this movie. His wit, his naivety, his insanity, everything. He's just great as Roy Neary. There is one scene in the film where you really feel bad for this guy. And that's the added scene with him in the bathtub, fully clothed, with the water running over him. He just looked like he was at his breaking point with his belief of extra-terrestrials, and his wife didn't believe him. The whole scene just plays really well.

Another thing that works so well, is the humor. As it does in almost every Spielberg film (aside from Temple of Doom). Two of my favorite scenes are when Roy is driving and the "car" slows down behind him, only to be revealed that it's not a car, it's a god damn spacecraft. And the second is when the aliens are taking over Jillian's house, and the vacuum rolls by and the kid says, "Clean everything up!". I love it. Little things like that just adds to a movie. So many movies just worry about the big picture. Little nuances like that can make someone like or really love a film.

And of course, you cant rant about a Spielberg film without mentioning the score. Williams really delivers in Close Encounters. This movie really does prove that simplicity is fucking key. That main 5-note tune is so incredibly good. Actually, that's what Jurassic Park and Close Encounters have in common. Both of the most iconic qualities about those movie are IN the movies themselves. Jurassic Park's being it's logo. The logo shows up on car doors, name tags, walls, mugs, shirts, gates, everything. The same goes with Close Encounters. The theme of the movie shows up almost everywhere. From when they discover the 5 notes, to when Berry plays it on his xylophone, to the classic end scene. I literally know only like... 4 things to play on piano. Close Encounters' theme being one of them. It's just so simplistic and catchy. And you gotta' love the not-fully-played "When You Wish Upon a Star" appearances throughout the movie. Yeah, in the credits, they play the song. But it's only teased throughout the course of the movie.

But one of the things I admire most about Close Encounters of the Third Kind is... The balls it has. Now I know what you're thinking, "Balls? Close Encounters may be good. But it doesnt have balls.". The movie has balls. And for one reason, and one reason only (If you havent seen Close Encounters, then I guess dont read any further?)... The ending. When you see the ending, you think, "Wow, that was good. That was pretty... Wait a minute! Dude totally just ditched his fucking family!". At least, that's what I thought. If this movie were made today, I guarantee you that the studio would have made his family show up on the landing strip to join him. Only to make it a happy ending. Only... It is a happy ending, with a sad reality. I mean, you have this guy, who has 3 kids and a wife. And he just randomly goes with a group of aliens to space for all eternity? That's pretty fucking ballsy for a family film. I mean, I know one of Spielberg's trademarks is parental negligence. But at least in E.T. there was no father to be found. In Close Encounters, the father practically just says, "Fuck this. Im going in space.". It's pretty nuts.

Oh yeah, and one of the greatest images to ever exist...

Drag Me To Hell

2009-12-21T11:21:00.004-05:00

Im going start off by saying, I have not seen a horror movie in theatres in years. I honestly refuse to watch horror after 1995. There are far too many reasons to really get into here. But when Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell was first announced, I was intrigued. As the months went on, and casting was announced, I got more curious. Fast forward quite a few months, the trailer was released. Fuck. This movie couldn't have come out sooner. I was fucking sold after the first trailer viewing. And in those few months between casting and the trailer, various film news sites had gone to screenings, and had nothing but good things to say about Drag Me To Hell.
　
I said I wouldn't get into my reasoning for hating new (or "nu") horror, but I kinda' have to. It's the only way to compliment Drag Me To Hell. The main problem with every new paint-by-numbers horror movie is, there's all terror, and no horror. Terror does not have to involve the brain. If Im walking down a hallway, and someone randomly pops out of a doorway, Im going to jump. It's all physical. Horror is all mental. All these new horror movies are just composited of "made-ya-jump" scenes. And I fucking hate it. There is no fear or dread behind it. It's all reflexes. Horror films need to build up an atmosphere. They need to put you in a state of fear throughout the whole film. Even when there's not the least bit of anything horrifying. Drag Me To Hell does this perfectly. Yes, the movie does have quite a few "made-ya-jump" scenes. But you know what's funny?... They're also fucking scary.
　
Drag Me To Hell is a perfect combination between being its own movie, and still doing it the old-fashioned way. For instance, Grindhouse. I would NEVER put Grindhouse in with a list of 10 original horror films. Why? Because Grindhouse is basically one giant homage. Did I like Grindhouse? Yeah, a little. But I dont, at all, consider it really good. It's just an imitation. Drag Me To Hell really does have the perfect balance between original and old-fashioned. Raimi does throw in a few nods back to the Evil Dead trilogy. But it wasn't anything cringe-worthy. In fact, most of them were smile-inducing. There was one particular scene where a goat starts talking, and I started to chant "dead by dawn!" in the theatre. And some of that sick Raimi sense of humor really makes me wonder... How the FUCK is this movie getting straight A+'s across the board? This film has a 95% on Rotten Tomatoes. I couldnt believe it. First of all, I really cant name one horror movie, in the past 10 or 15 years that has gotten phenomenal reviews. I really cant. I am so happy for Sam Raimi.
　
Now to some of the more specific things. Ill first start off with the music. I wanted to punch everyone in the face when I found out the movie's score was being released in July. This movie's score was fucking INCREDIBLE. The re-occuring gypsy violin that appeared throughout the film was great. There were plenty of times when I would be taken out of the movie in result of a certain music que being so fucking cool. Particularly one scene, and that is the scene with Christina in the graveyard. I cant really recollect what it was exactly, but I remember fucking loving it. Ill be seeing this movie at least 2 more times. But partly due to just to hear the music for that scene again. They did a really good job in the marketing of the film, in terms of music. Because I was hoping the film's music would go down the route they did in the trailer. It was very traditional, eerie, and evil. Lo and behold, who scored this movie? Christopher Young. Now, I had never heard of Christopher Young up until Spiderman 3. Now I know what you're thinking, "fuck that, Spiderman 3 sucked.". Well, that's true, but in truth, it had THEE best score of all the Spiderman films. Danny Elfman did a good job on Spiderman 1 and 2. But Christopher Young's score (especially the main Symbiote theme) fucking ruled so hard. And the weird part is that, whenever I listen to the Symbiote theme, I always think to myself, "this would be a fucking great piece to use in a horror movie". Not so much the main part of the theme, but the violins that are strumming behind, and leading up to it. And surely enough, one of the main fore-front instruments for Drag Me To Hell is the violin.
　
Another little thing that I really enjoyed was the title sequence, and the end title. First off, they start off with the 1970's/1980's Universal logo, which was really weird. I dont really understand why (maybe it's Raimi's favorite Universal logo?) but really enjoyed it. They actually did the same with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, with the old school Paramount logo. Anyway, the title sequence was really cool. because the credits would roll through, and then the logo just popped up abruptly. It was in the vein of like an old 50's drive-in movie, but without being too forceful. And they did the same with the end scene. Right after the scene ended, the title popped up the same way. I know it's nerdy to go out of my way to praise that, but it's little things like that, that add to a movie. Also, the movie's title is fucking great. I cant get over how fucking cool it is. It's just so blunt and rad. DRAG ME TO HELL. I seriously wish I had thought of that for a song title or something. It's so fucking cool.
　
For every yin, there is a yang. I didnt have too many gripes with the film overall. My main one was the CGI. For the most part, it was pretty good. But in certain scenes, it was kinda' bad. But oddly enough, it didnt taint the film whatsoever. As I said before, it has a lot of Evil Dead II moments, so you dont really take the sketchy CGI too seriously. Also, some of the acting was kinda' not that great in parts. But some of that is due to the lines themselves. But it never really tainted a scene. Though, Im so very happy that Alison Lohman got the part in the end. Because originally, Ellen Paige got the leading role, but she dropped out. Because really, the last thing I need in this movie is some witty "woman" (because Ellen Paige looks like she's 12) to smart-talk a demon. Because you're supposed to kinda' care for this character. Not hate the fuck out her. And if Ellen Paige stuck with the role, I dont think I could do anything other than hate her.
　
Well, Drag Me To Hell is a PERFECT way to end the month of May. If you are like me, and couldn't give the slightest shit about a recently-made horror movie... SEE THIS FUCKING MOVIE.
　
Hello, Sam Raimi. Welcome back.

Blu-Ray, Go Fuck Yourself

2009-12-21T11:16:00.010-05:00

Okay, after about a year of experimenting... My posision on Blu-Ray has changed. Like, almost fully. But I still do believe some movies don't look right on Blu-Ray. But it really is the set-up (brand of TV, brand of player, etc.) that you have that plays a big part in whether or not Blu-Ray looks good or not. So I now officially label this blog...

V O I D

It's kinda' scary when you go into Borders or Best Buy, and you see the DVD section slowly depleting. It's been almost 15 years since DVD came onto the scene. I knew there would be format changes, but I didnt think it would be this soon. Hell, the format hasn't even changed that drastically. We go from DVD to Blu-Ray. Both are discs, so why do I hate Blu-Ray so much? Well, it's simple. It looks like shit.

DVD's, to me, look like movies. They look like they were shot on film, and processed onto a disc. And to me, that looks great. They looks like movies (because that's kinda' what they are). But then HD-DVD and Blu-Ray came onto the market, and they had that infamous format war. People say the war in Iraq is pointless? Well, I can win-up that war. And that is... The format war. Back in 2007 HD-DVD and Blu-Ray competed to see as to who would be the default successor. Blu-Ray, as you may notice, has won that war. But that's really fucking retarded because... They're the same god damn thing. And Im not just throwing that statement out there with ignorance. I studied the two, and they are really the same god damn thing. Yes, there are some minor differences, but other than that, it's the same fucking disc, with two different fucking colors. The way I think companies decided as to who they were going with, was with a simple question, "What color looks better on a box?". Maroon or blue?

Now to the shit that really pisses me off... The quality. Every person I know goes nuts over the hi-definition of the picture. to quote Dr. Ian Malcom, "You're so pre-occupied as to whether or not you could, you never stopped to think whether or not you should.". And that quote plays in so well in this. Yes, it's in hi-def, and yes it's crystal clear. BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD. The quality of the picture takes away any movie-quality that film has. I saw a Blu-Ray presentation of Pirates of the Caribbean in Best Buy, and I thought, "They made a Pirates TV show?". It is not movie-quality. It looks like a fucking TV show shot on DV. When I watch a movie, I want it to look like a movie. Now yes, there are exceptions. Documentaries. I love to watch Discovery documentaries (Planet Earth and such) in HD. And there's two reasons for that. The first reason being, most of the documentaries or nature/wildlife shows I've watched were not shot on film. They were shot on HD cameras. The clarity and realism of the picture makes me feel like Im there, and it's a great experience. I dont want that with movies, I want my movies to look theatrical.

My second gripe with HD is the glitching. I know that DVD's glitch sometimes, but that's usually due to the DVD player or a scratched disc. With Blu-Ray, it's just what happens. When I was watching Pirates at Best Buy I saw it glitch almost 3 times in the 10 minutes I watched it. Not knowing whether or not it was a faulty Blu-Ray player, or a scratched disc, I looked at the TV next to it. It was playing The Pursuit of Happyness. And what happened? It glitched just as much. Total bullshit.

Though, I will give credit to Blu-Ray for it's featurettes. There's a few features where it lets you watch "making of"'s, storyboards, and a bunch of other shit while the movie is playing. I find that to be interesting. But in all honesty, I don't need that. The most interactivity I need while watching a movie is audio commentary and MAYBE alternate angles (as my Alice Cooper: Brutally Live DVD has). But other than that, I dont need anything else while Im watching the movie.

And the only time I'll watch a movie in HD is on TV. And that is solely because, the standard TV quality is pretty shitty. It's so pixelated (at least it is with Comcast). The HD quality of a movie on TV is that of a DVD. Except for the HD Discovery shows. That's true HD because most of those shows were shot with actual HD cameras.

Oh yeah, Texas Chainsaw Massacre... On Blu-Ray? What the fuck? That's a contradiction if I ever did see one.

The Films of 2009

2009-12-21T11:02:00.007-05:00

2009 is shaping up to be a... Decent year. I really cannot see anything in the next coming years beating 2008. In '08 we had Cloverfield, Rambo, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The X-Files: I Want To Believe, The Dark Knight, Burn After Reading, Religulous, and so much more. This year we have quite a few good movies coming out, but Im not nearly as jacked for 'em as I was Rambo, Indy, X-Files and so on. But that isn't to say Im not strongly anticipating some of these films. So instead of rambling on about 2008, Ill ramble on about 2009...

The order Im listing these films are in the order of their release dates (as they stand now).

First up is Terminator Salvation. The month of May was awesome in '08, just for Indy alone. But this month is sadly weak. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the opener for May, and Wolverine looks pretty lame. Gambit looks too "pretty", the FX looks pretty crappy, and their casting for some of the characters (Ryan Renolds as Deadpool?!) has been so incredibly bad, it's enough for me to not give two fucks about the movie. Anyway, back to Terminator Salvation... The movie can fail, sure. But from the looks of the trailers, it looks like it'll be a 6.5 (out of 10) at best. I mean, I can only expect so much from a director who calls himself "McG". This is supposedly the first of the new trilogy. Terminator Salvation is released May 22nd.

Last in the month of May is Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell. Ive said it before, and Ill say it again... HORROR IS DEAD. I really don't care to watch any horror movies made past 1995. But Drag Me To Hell looks cool. Yes, this is Sam Raimi's comeback to horror. But Im not at all expecting a masterpiece. I just want a good, classic, and creepy horror movie. That's the number one flaw with horror films nowadays, they're not creepy. They're just jumpy. James Cameron said it best, there's a difference between horror and terror. In horror films, the atmosphere should make you scared, not that lame pop-outs and loud noises. Horror is all psychological, when terror really has to do with your nerves. And Drag Me To Hell looks like a HORROR movie. Classic score, creepy imagery, and an interesting story. Am I saying Drag Me To Hell is going to bring horror back? Not at all. It's only going to be a breath of fresh air. And at this point, that's all I need. Drag Me To Hell opens on May 29th.

Next up is my absolute number one film of the year. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I am so fucking ready for this loud, giant, and shiny fucking movie. Back in '07 when Transformers first came out, I wasn't really anticipating to see it. Then I saw it and was quite impressed. Months after, I decided to see it IMAX, drunk, and ready. Holy shit. Was that fucking awesome. Then it came out on DVD, I snagged it, watched it, and I was hooked. Now after seeing the Superbowl TV spot with Devastator? I lost it. Then the teaser trailer came out (with literally 3 words spoken in the whole trailer), and it kicked my ass once more. I dont have a clue how they're going to top Revenge of the Fallen with 3. They go to fucking Japan and Egypt. And there's Constructicons. This is going to be so boss. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen opens June 26th.

Next is Public Enemies. It's Michael Mann's new gangster film with Johnny Depp playing John Dillinger. The trailer that was just released looks killer. There's one specific shot with Depp holding his Tommy gun out of a car window that looks particularly badass. There's really not much else to say about it, other than this looks like a rockin' movie. Public Enemies opens on July 1st.

Following Public Enemies the week after is Bruno. Haha, I don't care how annoying the quotes from Borat have gotten. The movie is still hilarious. Bruno is Sacha Baron Cohens's next mockumentary. But instead of with an ignorant middle-eastern man, it's with an uber-flamboyant gay guy. I really don't know too much about it (since nothing has really been released yet), but I did see them shooting a clip pranking Schwarzenegger. Not sure if it's going to make it into the film though. Oh yeah, and the movie's full title is: Bruno: Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt. Bruno: Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt hits theatres July 10th.

The next movie Im not even sure why Im putting on this list, but I kinda' do wanna' see it just to see how bad it fails. And that's G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. The movie I am almost 97.6% certain is going to fail. I have no idea what they are trying to do with this movie, but it looks bad. Stephen Sommers' best movie is Deep Rising, and that movie is terrible(ly) awesome. And I highly doubt he can even do the same thing (which really isn't a good thing) with G.I. Joe. I guess when August 7th rolls around, we'll see. But Im fairly certain we wont have to wait until then to know whether or not it sucks piss-farts.

Next up is Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds (spelling intentionally incorrect). I read on Latino Review, that the script Tarantino had written for this movie was incredible. But then again, that's THEM, and not ME. But Ill be honest, I was not impressed with the first trailer they released for this film. And Im going to try and not let the marketing for this film get in the way with me seeing it. But the trailer was very modernized. Which totally doesn't fit with a WWII film trailer. Hopefully the Weinstein Company gets their pants on right, and markets the film a little less... shittier when it comes closer to opening. Inglorious Basterds opens August 21st.

After August, there is absolutely NOTHING in September. So fast forward to October 2nd to Shutter Island. Shutter Island is Scorsese's new mental asylum film. The movie is based on a booked called Ashecliff Island, and from the synopsis that I read on the book, it sounds killer. DeCaprio is set to star in the movie, which is rad because eventhough I didnt really like Gangs of New York, Scorsese and DeCaprio did an excellent job together in The Departed. Fucking love The Departed. Definitely pumped for Shutter Island.

November holds only one good film. And that's The Wolfman. I saw a bootleg trailer from one of the Comic Cons, and it looks to be a very traditionally-shot film. Joe Johnson (who did Jurassic Park III) really hasn't done too much stuff that interested me, or that I liked, but I think the guy has the ability to something good. And The Wolfman might be that. He also has the great acting abilities of Benicio Del Toro, and the INCREDIBLE werewolf make-up FX done by Rick Baker (fuck yeah!) to help him out. So Im definitely giving this movie a shot. The Wolfman opens up November 6th. Oh yeah, and Joe Johnson is also partly responsible for some of the awesome FX in Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Props to that mo'fucker.

Up next is Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones. I hold Peter Jackson up high on my top-directors list. From Bad Taste, Dead Alive, and The Frighteners, to The Lord of the Rings and King Kong. Peter Jackson can do it all. And that's why Im pretty pumped for The Lovely Bones. Because it's really not something he's done before. It's about a girl that gets murdered and goes to Heaven to watch over her family and killer, and has to decide between getting revenge or her desire for her family or something. All in all, it sounds pretty cool. I just really enjoy watching Peter Jackson's movies. The Lovely Bones opens December 11th.

20th Century Fox is saving the best for last. I know I said Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is my top film to see of this year. Well, it's really a tie. It's a tie between Transformers and James Cameron's Avatar. What has James Cameron been doing since he made Titanic and got rich as FUCK?! He's been making Avatar. For 12 years, Cameron has been working on this film. That includes pre-production, principal photography, and post-production (which he recently JUST started). Cameron said this is going to be the most complex film ever made. And I believe him because James Cameron is a true artist and knows exactly what he wants. Now what exactly IS Avatar? From what Ive gathered, it's a combination of Aliens and The Abyss. It's also a combination of live-action and motion capture. I have NO idea how he's going to combine the two, but I have complete faith in James Cameron. Now I (nor anyone else) have not seen ANYTHING from this movie (only pictures of Cameron on the set). It was also reported that this is the most expensive movie ever made. With a production of over 300 million (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End was 300 mil.), I know James Cameron is cooking up some serious shit. December 18th, Im fucking there.

Who Watches The Watchmen? Not me.

2009-12-21T10:36:00.016-05:00

Since the deletion on my Myspace months back, Ive had the biggest urge (even more so than before) to post my senseless rants, but I couldn't. So I decided to create another Myspace. Not just for the sole fact that I want to post again. But because well... I cant creep on people's private Myspaces anymore!

Anyway, I've been asked quite a bit about Watchmen from plenty of friends, and instead of giving the same rant over and over (as I've been doing), I figured Id post it in blog form. That way, it keeps me from breaking a blood-vessel over me focusing all my body-energy into hating the tits out of Zack Snyder.

The Watchmen. Im not really sure where to even start. Well, I guess Ill start off with 300. I remember hearing all about 300 right before it came out, and then it came out and expected an uproar of negative-as-fuck reviews. Sadly, people loved it. That movie proved to me that Zack Snyder makes my top-five worst hack film makers of all-time. First he does the Dawn of the Dead remake, which was just ass. Plain and simple. Then he does 300 which was one of thee most pseudo-epic films I have seen to date.

I never planned on seeing the film. But one day it was on HBOHD, and I watched it. Jesus Christ. The movie was a helluva lot worse than I had predicted. The whole movie CLEARLY looked like it was filmed on the same 20x40 foot greenscreen set. It's one thing to know exactly how you want your film to look. But it's another to actually have atmosphere. All 300 is, is a gold sky, digital maroon blood, and... Well, basically just a bunch of diarrhea. I've concluded that the film is only 15 minutes long. The whole movie is in fucking slow-motion. I dont think that cunt Zack Snyder understands that the more slow-motion you use, doesn't make it more epic. It makes it even less tolerable. And the pseudo-epic narration does NOT help at all. It's pathetic. The warrior goes to grab some fruit... SLOW-MOTION and NARRATION! The warrior goes to lay in his bed... SLOW-MOTION and NARRATION!

And people always suck the movie's cock over how bloody it was. It was bloody? All I saw were these random digital maroon blots fly across the screen. Really, from the guy who did the Dawn of the Dead re-make, in which it's only plus was that they used all on-set blood, to 300 and using all digital blood? Get the fuck outta' here. So moving on...

The Watchmen, from what I have gathered, is no different. I have not seen The Watchmen, and I will not see it. I remember before the first trailer was released, I knew it was going to suck, and people weren't going to like it. When they released the first trailer, I was amazed. Amazed that it was so good? No. I was amazed at how incredibly shitty the movie looked, and how good of a response it got from people. I had to watch it again to make sure I was watching the same trailer as everyone else. I guess no one else saw that it looked like Mystery Men with a bigger budget. Anyway, fast-forward to March 6th when they released like 19 clips online, I watch a decent amount of them, and man... Was it 300 all over again. I mean, it was worse than I thought.

First of all, the music was GOD AWFUL. I felt as if I had been watching the clips on silent at a rave party in San Francisco. I don't know what the hell Zack Snyder was smoking when he got Tyler Bates onboard to score this celluloid-diarrhea picture, but... Well, I guess awful artists think alike. So it actually makes perfect sense. And of course the slow-mo had to be in effect for the action scenes. And I bet my balls that the near-3-hour Watchmen film would only be just-under 2 hours if Hack Snyder would have taken out all the slow-mo. And the rest of the scenes were just as fucking awful. The scoring, the level of corniness, the acting. But then again, complaining about the acting is like complaining about finding a hair in a shit-sandwich.

All in all, this movie looks AWFUL. Ill probably end of seeing it on HBO randomly, and realize that the movie is worse than I thought. But it's alright, when this movie drops more than 50% of it's box office next weekend because of bad word-of-mouth, Ill be more than happy. I love to see movies I love do well, and movies I hate fail. Yeah, it did well opening weekend, but not spectacular. Honestly, Id be surprised if it broke even.

And to the people who thought and still think this movie was "filmable", just because you can do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.