It's the beginning of a new month. One of the biggest blockbusters is coming out this week and I know all of you know what it is already. ahem... Avengers... *cough* But of course there are other movies out so we'll take a look at those as well. Here we go.
1) AVENGERS: Some of the world's greatest heroes team up to prevent the world's destruction.
The Good: This is the payoff we've all been waiting for since 2008.
The Bad: I'm so looking forward to this movie I just can't look at this one objectively. The trailers are too awesome!
Final Thoughts: It's probably too late to get the midnight showing tickets, but I fully intend to see this movie as soon as I can.
2) THE BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL: A group of retirees move to India and want to spend their retirement in the Marigold Hotel.
The Good: It's a character piece and plans to talk about love and life in the golden years of our lives.
The Bad: Probably just not going to get much attention because of The Avengers.
Final Thoughts: If you're looking for an alternative to the huge comic book movie, this one looks really good. It's worth checking out.
3) MOTHER'S DAY: After a bank robbery gone wrong, three brothers learn that their mother lost the house in a forecloser.
The Good: Mrs. Bates has nothing on this lady.
The Bad: It's just a really bad time to have this kind of scary movie coming out. It's May. You know... Spring/Summer? Bring on the happy!
Final Thoughts: It'll make a good rental.
4) LOL: Lola breaks up with her boyfriend and thinks her good friend Kyle might be the love of her life.
The Good: It's a remake of a foreign film starring Miley Cyrus. Do you really think this is going to be good?
The Bad: It's a romantic comedy starring Miley Cyrus. Because yeah. I always wanted to see Hanna Montana get all girly.
Final Thoughts: Not even on a dare.
See you at the movies!
Monday, April 30, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Safe review:
I make it a habit of only spoiling bad movies. That way I can save you from wasting your money on bad movies and I get to vent a lot of frustration... Oh there will be spoilers for this one.
I'll be fair... for the most part, it's not a really bad movie. The action is pretty good (except for all the close up shaky cam), the acting is alright (but nothing special), and Statham does have some really good one-liners. But that's the only positives I have to share with this one.
This movie fails in some of the most basic elements of storytelling it makes me cringe. So, welcome again class to a new installment in our movie making 101 class. After watching Colombiana I came up with several ways it failed at storytelling. This one while doesn't make as many mistakes as Colombiana, this movie made such glaring errors they need to be highlighted.
Welcome to Storytelling 101 part 2.
1) Don't try to tell too much story in a short period of time. The first act of the movie is actually two different stories. One where we follow an 11-year-old Chinese girl and the other where we see Luke Wright (Statham) get his family murdered by the Russian mob. Other movies have done this kind of thing before; most notably Close Incounters of the Third Kind. But while Close Encounters took time and stuck with one family for several minutes, Safe shuffles through stories after every SCENE! It's so jarring I literally threw up my hands in frustration. Which brings me to the second problem with the first act.
2) Don't time shift so much! Especially if we are telling two different stories spanning over a year in about 15 minutes! It really is hard to keep up with what is happening and when. Act 1 needed a serious re-write. It's such a jumbled mess of rushed exposition and quick cuts.
3) Tell the exposition fairy to stay at home! It's an expression I've used in other reviews but sometimes in stories they have characters basically blurt out important information. I call these characters "the exposition fairy" because that's their only role in the movie. For example Spaceballs had Colonel Sanders. He's talking with President Scroob and Dark Helmet and he plainly tells Dark Helmet their plan to steal all of Druidia's air. Dark Helmet then looks into the camera and asks the audience if "everyone got that?" In this movie, Luke is in a cage fight. He's supposed to lose the fight because it was fixed. And that's why the Russian mob killed his wife... or girlfriend... or housemate... not sure because I never saw her. (more on that coming up) But the only way we the audience knew the fight was fixed and Luke screwed up was because someone just came out and told us. IT'S A MOVIE!!! SHOW!!! DON'T TELL!!!
4) Introduce a character before doing something to said character. I can't believe I have to even explain this point. If you don't know anything about the person, why should I care about this person? If the character's death is supposed to be tramatic to the main character, and I have no emotional investment in either the main character, his emotional well-being, or even aware of the existence of a love interest, why should I have any emotional investment in her death? AM I CRAZY? There's no drama in killing a red shirt!
5) Don't make the antagonist a surprise! In a story there's a protagonist, and an antagonist. Basically speaking the protagonist is the person we follow in the story, and the antagonist is the person trying to stop the protagonist from realizing his ambition. Usually we establish the antagonist in the first act. The end of act 1 in Die Hard, we introduce Hans Gruber and begin the conflict. In Safe we get a lot of bad people but the antagonist isn't even heard of except for a single phone call until the end of act 2! That means for over an hour we follow Quan Chang (Reggie Lee) as the sadistic Chinese mobster and surrogate "father" to Mei (Catherine Chan) but he's not the real antagonist because Chang gets killed off long before the climax of the movie. Can you say, "waste of time?" I knew you could.
6) The climax is not a minor detail! This is what angered me so much that I had to do my review like this. The only thing worse than having a terrible climax, IS NOT HAVING A CLIMAX AT ALL! Imagine if you will... you're watching Star Wars... you are watching as Luke Skywalker and all the rebels are getting ready to go attack the Death Star. Then the next scene is them coming back to base celebrating. Wouldn't you like to see what happened? I know I would. I'd feel a little ripped off if they didn't show me the destruction of the Death Star. In this movie we see Statham squaring off with Alex (Anson Mount), right after he single handedly killed the last remnants of the Chinese mob in about 5 seconds. They are getting ready for their epic hand-to-hand fight and then... the 11 year-old girl shoots him in the leg, Luke (Statham) shoots a lot more into his head, and then the movie just kinda wraps up. WORST POSSIBLE WAY TO END A MOVIE EVER!
Dear readers, I beg you, DEMAND better stories. Until next time.....
I'll be fair... for the most part, it's not a really bad movie. The action is pretty good (except for all the close up shaky cam), the acting is alright (but nothing special), and Statham does have some really good one-liners. But that's the only positives I have to share with this one.
This movie fails in some of the most basic elements of storytelling it makes me cringe. So, welcome again class to a new installment in our movie making 101 class. After watching Colombiana I came up with several ways it failed at storytelling. This one while doesn't make as many mistakes as Colombiana, this movie made such glaring errors they need to be highlighted.
Welcome to Storytelling 101 part 2.
1) Don't try to tell too much story in a short period of time. The first act of the movie is actually two different stories. One where we follow an 11-year-old Chinese girl and the other where we see Luke Wright (Statham) get his family murdered by the Russian mob. Other movies have done this kind of thing before; most notably Close Incounters of the Third Kind. But while Close Encounters took time and stuck with one family for several minutes, Safe shuffles through stories after every SCENE! It's so jarring I literally threw up my hands in frustration. Which brings me to the second problem with the first act.
2) Don't time shift so much! Especially if we are telling two different stories spanning over a year in about 15 minutes! It really is hard to keep up with what is happening and when. Act 1 needed a serious re-write. It's such a jumbled mess of rushed exposition and quick cuts.
3) Tell the exposition fairy to stay at home! It's an expression I've used in other reviews but sometimes in stories they have characters basically blurt out important information. I call these characters "the exposition fairy" because that's their only role in the movie. For example Spaceballs had Colonel Sanders. He's talking with President Scroob and Dark Helmet and he plainly tells Dark Helmet their plan to steal all of Druidia's air. Dark Helmet then looks into the camera and asks the audience if "everyone got that?" In this movie, Luke is in a cage fight. He's supposed to lose the fight because it was fixed. And that's why the Russian mob killed his wife... or girlfriend... or housemate... not sure because I never saw her. (more on that coming up) But the only way we the audience knew the fight was fixed and Luke screwed up was because someone just came out and told us. IT'S A MOVIE!!! SHOW!!! DON'T TELL!!!
4) Introduce a character before doing something to said character. I can't believe I have to even explain this point. If you don't know anything about the person, why should I care about this person? If the character's death is supposed to be tramatic to the main character, and I have no emotional investment in either the main character, his emotional well-being, or even aware of the existence of a love interest, why should I have any emotional investment in her death? AM I CRAZY? There's no drama in killing a red shirt!
5) Don't make the antagonist a surprise! In a story there's a protagonist, and an antagonist. Basically speaking the protagonist is the person we follow in the story, and the antagonist is the person trying to stop the protagonist from realizing his ambition. Usually we establish the antagonist in the first act. The end of act 1 in Die Hard, we introduce Hans Gruber and begin the conflict. In Safe we get a lot of bad people but the antagonist isn't even heard of except for a single phone call until the end of act 2! That means for over an hour we follow Quan Chang (Reggie Lee) as the sadistic Chinese mobster and surrogate "father" to Mei (Catherine Chan) but he's not the real antagonist because Chang gets killed off long before the climax of the movie. Can you say, "waste of time?" I knew you could.
6) The climax is not a minor detail! This is what angered me so much that I had to do my review like this. The only thing worse than having a terrible climax, IS NOT HAVING A CLIMAX AT ALL! Imagine if you will... you're watching Star Wars... you are watching as Luke Skywalker and all the rebels are getting ready to go attack the Death Star. Then the next scene is them coming back to base celebrating. Wouldn't you like to see what happened? I know I would. I'd feel a little ripped off if they didn't show me the destruction of the Death Star. In this movie we see Statham squaring off with Alex (Anson Mount), right after he single handedly killed the last remnants of the Chinese mob in about 5 seconds. They are getting ready for their epic hand-to-hand fight and then... the 11 year-old girl shoots him in the leg, Luke (Statham) shoots a lot more into his head, and then the movie just kinda wraps up. WORST POSSIBLE WAY TO END A MOVIE EVER!
Dear readers, I beg you, DEMAND better stories. Until next time.....
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Coming Soon: 4/27/12
There were way too many romance movies last week. None really interested me. There was one I was thinking about seeing, but I just had too much to do this week. For instance, I GOT A PUPPY! He's a black lab puppy and he's a handful. He needs constant attention. Anyway, what's coming out?
1) THE RAVEN: A serial killer is inspired by the poems of Edgar Allen Poe so detectives enlist Poe to help catch the murderer.
The Good: This movie is really goofy. And with John Cusack in it, I think it might be a lot of fun.
The Bad: Doesn't this story sound familiar? Like done to death familiar?
Final Thoughts: I want to see it. But if this movie takes itself too seriously, then it's doomed to fail.
2) SAFE: A former cage fighter has his family murdered and then befriends a 12 year old girl.
The Good: It's Jason Statham kicking butt and doing lots of martial arts.
The Bad: Is this really a coherant story? It sounds like two stories stuck together.
Final Thoughts: I want to see it. I like Jason Statham movies. But my patience is running thin. He's done way too many bad movies lately.
3) THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT: The story of a couple dealing with all the stress of planning a wedding.
The Good: It's supposed to answer the question of what happens once the romance part of the relationship is over.
The Bad: Everything about this movie screams contrived scenes and forced comedy.
Final Thoughts: Probably won't see it unless someone pays me.
4) PIRATES! BAND OF MISFITS: A pirate captain named Pirate Captain (I think) wants to beat his rivals and win the coveted Pirate of the Year award.
The Good: This is going to be THE kid movie. There's a lot of crazy fun with colorful characters.
The Bad: I'm not a big fan of claymation. But that's more of a personal quirk more than anything.
Final Thoughts: If you were going to see a guaranteed enjoyable movie this week, it's probably going to be this one.
5) BERNIE: A popular/charming man befriends the crankiest/richest woman in town. Up until he is accused of murdering her.
The Good: As dark comedies go, this one sounds very interesting.
The Bad: When was the last time Jack Black was the leading man in a good movie?
Final Thoughts: I'd be willing to give this one a chance. But man I'm cautious about this one.
See you at the movies!
1) THE RAVEN: A serial killer is inspired by the poems of Edgar Allen Poe so detectives enlist Poe to help catch the murderer.
The Good: This movie is really goofy. And with John Cusack in it, I think it might be a lot of fun.
The Bad: Doesn't this story sound familiar? Like done to death familiar?
Final Thoughts: I want to see it. But if this movie takes itself too seriously, then it's doomed to fail.
2) SAFE: A former cage fighter has his family murdered and then befriends a 12 year old girl.
The Good: It's Jason Statham kicking butt and doing lots of martial arts.
The Bad: Is this really a coherant story? It sounds like two stories stuck together.
Final Thoughts: I want to see it. I like Jason Statham movies. But my patience is running thin. He's done way too many bad movies lately.
3) THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT: The story of a couple dealing with all the stress of planning a wedding.
The Good: It's supposed to answer the question of what happens once the romance part of the relationship is over.
The Bad: Everything about this movie screams contrived scenes and forced comedy.
Final Thoughts: Probably won't see it unless someone pays me.
4) PIRATES! BAND OF MISFITS: A pirate captain named Pirate Captain (I think) wants to beat his rivals and win the coveted Pirate of the Year award.
The Good: This is going to be THE kid movie. There's a lot of crazy fun with colorful characters.
The Bad: I'm not a big fan of claymation. But that's more of a personal quirk more than anything.
Final Thoughts: If you were going to see a guaranteed enjoyable movie this week, it's probably going to be this one.
5) BERNIE: A popular/charming man befriends the crankiest/richest woman in town. Up until he is accused of murdering her.
The Good: As dark comedies go, this one sounds very interesting.
The Bad: When was the last time Jack Black was the leading man in a good movie?
Final Thoughts: I'd be willing to give this one a chance. But man I'm cautious about this one.
See you at the movies!
Friday, April 20, 2012
From the Vault: Blade Runner
Made back in 1982, Blade Runner has over the years become recognized as one of the hallmarks of the sci-fi genre. Coming a few years after the huge success of Alien, Ridley Scott truely pushed the idea of sci-fi and style to the breaking point. This "neo-noir" story heralds back to the film noir type stories of the 1920s. Here however, our police officer named Deckard isn't looking for ordinary criminals... he's after human looking robots called "replicants".
Replicants are in almost every way just like humans. The look, sound, and in many ways act human. The only difference is their lack of emotional maturity because of their short lifespan. The only way to detect a replicant is to give them a series of questions designed to illicit an emotional response.
Right away this plot has a central theme... What is the nature of humanity? What is it that makes a person human? What would any species of life do in order to survive? If it walks, talks, and thinks like a duck; is it a duck? It's the Blade Runner's job to find replicants and "retire" them. aka kill them.
Along with Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Indiana Jones) is a cast of hall of famers in sci-fi. People like Edward James Almos (Battlestar Galactica), Sean Young (Dune) , Daryl Hannah (Kill Bill), E. Emet Walsh (Return of the Planet of the Apes), and Rutger Hauer (Sin City, Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
The movie was brilliantly done, many of the scenes are just beautiful, and the acting was top notch. A must see for all fans looking for something that is challenging and artistic.
*I think...therefore I am.*
Replicants are in almost every way just like humans. The look, sound, and in many ways act human. The only difference is their lack of emotional maturity because of their short lifespan. The only way to detect a replicant is to give them a series of questions designed to illicit an emotional response.
Right away this plot has a central theme... What is the nature of humanity? What is it that makes a person human? What would any species of life do in order to survive? If it walks, talks, and thinks like a duck; is it a duck? It's the Blade Runner's job to find replicants and "retire" them. aka kill them.
Along with Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Indiana Jones) is a cast of hall of famers in sci-fi. People like Edward James Almos (Battlestar Galactica), Sean Young (Dune) , Daryl Hannah (Kill Bill), E. Emet Walsh (Return of the Planet of the Apes), and Rutger Hauer (Sin City, Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
The movie was brilliantly done, many of the scenes are just beautiful, and the acting was top notch. A must see for all fans looking for something that is challenging and artistic.
*I think...therefore I am.*
Monday, April 16, 2012
Coming Soon 4/20/12
It's a new week of movies. Are there any really good ones coming out? Let's see.
THE LUCKY ONE: A soldier serving in Iraq comes home to find a woman in a picture he never met.
The Good: It's a cutsy romance movie oozing with sap.
The Bad: It's starring that one guy from High School Musical and the mom from Little Fockers.
Final Thoughts: Romance movies are generally not my thing and with this weak cast I don't see this being all that great.
THINK LIKE A MAN: Steve Harvey writes a book on advising women on how men play them. So, men read the book and use that information against women.
The Good: The best thing is that I won't ever see it.
The Bad: Where do I begin? The open misogyny? Women treated once again as sexual playthings to be minipulated? The way women flock to cheap guru knockoffs? How a man has to spell out to sheeplike women how men play them? I could go on but this is supposed to be brief.
Final Thoughts: Yes, I am a man but somehow I still have morality and respect for women. So, there's nothing for me here. Just a lot of annoying guys looking for sex and women who don't notice. Game over man. Game over.
CHIMPANZEE: The story of a young chimp who loses his mom and is adopted by another chimp.
The Good: It's a heartwrenching tearjerker of a movie with a cute as all hell baby chimp.
The Bad: Nothing. It's a harmless documentary. Don't expect much dialogue.
Final Thoughts: I'd go see it. Expect to cry.
MARLEY: A documentary about the life and music of Bob Marley
The Good: Bob Marley was a very influential musician and the biggest name in Jamaican and raggae music. Who doesn't want to know more about him?
The Bad: Can't imagine much wrong with it. If you're a fan, it gives you want you want.
Final Thoughts: Check it out if you love Bob Marley. Or even if you don't know who he was.
THE MOTH DIARIES: A woman haunted by her father's suicide enrolls in a boarding school and she suspects one of the new girls might be a vampire once other students start dieing.
The Good: It's a story about obsession, death, and insanity.
The Bad: If we are meant to take any of this seriously, then God help us all.
Final Thoughts: I just feel this movie takes itself too seriously. It wants to make this whole story about lesbian sex and obsession. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out there aren't any vampires.
See you at the movies
THE LUCKY ONE: A soldier serving in Iraq comes home to find a woman in a picture he never met.
The Good: It's a cutsy romance movie oozing with sap.
The Bad: It's starring that one guy from High School Musical and the mom from Little Fockers.
Final Thoughts: Romance movies are generally not my thing and with this weak cast I don't see this being all that great.
THINK LIKE A MAN: Steve Harvey writes a book on advising women on how men play them. So, men read the book and use that information against women.
The Good: The best thing is that I won't ever see it.
The Bad: Where do I begin? The open misogyny? Women treated once again as sexual playthings to be minipulated? The way women flock to cheap guru knockoffs? How a man has to spell out to sheeplike women how men play them? I could go on but this is supposed to be brief.
Final Thoughts: Yes, I am a man but somehow I still have morality and respect for women. So, there's nothing for me here. Just a lot of annoying guys looking for sex and women who don't notice. Game over man. Game over.
CHIMPANZEE: The story of a young chimp who loses his mom and is adopted by another chimp.
The Good: It's a heartwrenching tearjerker of a movie with a cute as all hell baby chimp.
The Bad: Nothing. It's a harmless documentary. Don't expect much dialogue.
Final Thoughts: I'd go see it. Expect to cry.
MARLEY: A documentary about the life and music of Bob Marley
The Good: Bob Marley was a very influential musician and the biggest name in Jamaican and raggae music. Who doesn't want to know more about him?
The Bad: Can't imagine much wrong with it. If you're a fan, it gives you want you want.
Final Thoughts: Check it out if you love Bob Marley. Or even if you don't know who he was.
THE MOTH DIARIES: A woman haunted by her father's suicide enrolls in a boarding school and she suspects one of the new girls might be a vampire once other students start dieing.
The Good: It's a story about obsession, death, and insanity.
The Bad: If we are meant to take any of this seriously, then God help us all.
Final Thoughts: I just feel this movie takes itself too seriously. It wants to make this whole story about lesbian sex and obsession. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out there aren't any vampires.
See you at the movies
Friday, April 13, 2012
The Three Stooges review: Donut Remover
First of all, I want to say thank you to all who read my movie reviews, editorials, and general angry rantings and my movie geek moments. This is my 100th posting here at templeofthehut.blogspot.com! There is something to be said for the irony of having my 100th post be on Friday the 13th and a review of The Three Stooges, but I'll leave that to you. Thank you all for visiting my site. It gives me the confidence I need to continue doing this. Just knowing I have readers means a lot to me.
Anyway, on with the show!
I liked it. I laughed a lot! This was such a nostalgic movie. I read many of the reviews people had for this movie and it came down to one thing: Do you like the Stooges? I know that is a no-brainer but a lot of people complain that this focused way too much on being like a movie you'd see in the 1940's. There wasn't anything new. The movie didn't try to update the schtick of the Three Stooges. To that I say, what's wrong with the Stooges? We're talking about a timeless comedy trio. And dare I say, Will Sasso, Sean Hayes, and Chris Diamantopoulos did perfect impressions of Curly Howard, Larry Fine, and Moe Howard respectively. Not to mention the writing and directing by Peter and Bobby Ferrelly gave it that perfect Stooges feel. This really is a movie for Stooges fans.
The plot of the movie was nothing special and really unobtrusive. It gave these three guys all the room in the world to give their performances. And they gave great performances. Every eye gouge, head smack, and hair rip had purpose. It wasn't slapstick for the sake of slapstick. The crude humor was toned down compared to most modern comedies (by the way I hate modern sexual comedies). The most positive thing I can say is if this movie was in black and white, it easily could've been performed by the original Stooges. It felt like a Stooge movie.
Honestly, I could've done without the Jersey Shore people. But it was fun watching Moe slap them around.
A little history of the Stooges:
For those not too familiar with The Three Stooges, they were a comedy trio in a time where a comedy trio was VERY uncommon. We're talking about a time when comedy duos like Laurel and Hardy starred in several movies back in the late 20's, Abbott and Costello were in movies like Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein and Bob Hope teamed up with Bing Crosby in all their "Road to..." movies. The Three Stooges came along in the 1940s when Jews weren't very accepted. That's why Moses Harry Horwitz, Louis Feinberg, and Jerome Horwitz changed their names to Moe, Larry, and Curly.
There were many Stooges over the years. But the most popular by far were Moe, Larry, and Curly. First, there was Moe, Larry, and Moe's real life older brother, Samuel Horwitz... aka Shemp Howard. He left the act and Curly became the 3rd Stooge. However, Curly began to have severe mental and physical health problems and Shemp came back. A few years after Curly died, Shemp had a heart attack and the Stooges needed a replacement. So in comes Joe Besser. And this marks the real decline of the Three Stooges. Joe didn't like to be hit and his character was very whiny. He played his character much more like a giant kid rather than a "Stooge". Joe didn't stay long. Moe and Larry wanted to do more live shows, but Joe's wife just had a heart attack and didn't want to leave. Then there was Joe DeRita (aka. Curly Joe) He did much to re-establish much of the Stooges reputation. A much more likeable character. He stayed with the team up until 1970 when Larry had a stroke and the team disbanded. Another was set to step in for Larry, Emil Sitka, but he never got that chance. Emil Sitka was a supporting character in many Three Stooges shorts so he seemed like a logical choice. But by 1971 even Moe was starting to show his age and his health was failing so everyone just decided it was time to call it quits.
So to recap: Here are each Stooge, their years with the team, and when/how they died.
Moe Howard - 1925 - 1970. Died 1975 lung cancer
Larry Fine - 1925 - 1970 Died 1975 stroke
Curly Howard 1934 - 1949 Died 1952 stroke/brain hemmorage
Shemp Howard 1925 - 1934, 1950 - 1955 Died 1955 stroke
Joe Besser 1956 - 1957 Died 1988 heart failure
Curly Joe 1959 - 1970 Died 1993 Pneumonia
"unofficial Stooge" Emil Sitka 1971 Died 1998 stroke
I loved the movie, I love the Three Stooges, and I hope you do too.
PS: Curly Howard was my favorite.
Anyway, on with the show!
I liked it. I laughed a lot! This was such a nostalgic movie. I read many of the reviews people had for this movie and it came down to one thing: Do you like the Stooges? I know that is a no-brainer but a lot of people complain that this focused way too much on being like a movie you'd see in the 1940's. There wasn't anything new. The movie didn't try to update the schtick of the Three Stooges. To that I say, what's wrong with the Stooges? We're talking about a timeless comedy trio. And dare I say, Will Sasso, Sean Hayes, and Chris Diamantopoulos did perfect impressions of Curly Howard, Larry Fine, and Moe Howard respectively. Not to mention the writing and directing by Peter and Bobby Ferrelly gave it that perfect Stooges feel. This really is a movie for Stooges fans.
The plot of the movie was nothing special and really unobtrusive. It gave these three guys all the room in the world to give their performances. And they gave great performances. Every eye gouge, head smack, and hair rip had purpose. It wasn't slapstick for the sake of slapstick. The crude humor was toned down compared to most modern comedies (by the way I hate modern sexual comedies). The most positive thing I can say is if this movie was in black and white, it easily could've been performed by the original Stooges. It felt like a Stooge movie.
Honestly, I could've done without the Jersey Shore people. But it was fun watching Moe slap them around.
A little history of the Stooges:
For those not too familiar with The Three Stooges, they were a comedy trio in a time where a comedy trio was VERY uncommon. We're talking about a time when comedy duos like Laurel and Hardy starred in several movies back in the late 20's, Abbott and Costello were in movies like Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein and Bob Hope teamed up with Bing Crosby in all their "Road to..." movies. The Three Stooges came along in the 1940s when Jews weren't very accepted. That's why Moses Harry Horwitz, Louis Feinberg, and Jerome Horwitz changed their names to Moe, Larry, and Curly.
There were many Stooges over the years. But the most popular by far were Moe, Larry, and Curly. First, there was Moe, Larry, and Moe's real life older brother, Samuel Horwitz... aka Shemp Howard. He left the act and Curly became the 3rd Stooge. However, Curly began to have severe mental and physical health problems and Shemp came back. A few years after Curly died, Shemp had a heart attack and the Stooges needed a replacement. So in comes Joe Besser. And this marks the real decline of the Three Stooges. Joe didn't like to be hit and his character was very whiny. He played his character much more like a giant kid rather than a "Stooge". Joe didn't stay long. Moe and Larry wanted to do more live shows, but Joe's wife just had a heart attack and didn't want to leave. Then there was Joe DeRita (aka. Curly Joe) He did much to re-establish much of the Stooges reputation. A much more likeable character. He stayed with the team up until 1970 when Larry had a stroke and the team disbanded. Another was set to step in for Larry, Emil Sitka, but he never got that chance. Emil Sitka was a supporting character in many Three Stooges shorts so he seemed like a logical choice. But by 1971 even Moe was starting to show his age and his health was failing so everyone just decided it was time to call it quits.
So to recap: Here are each Stooge, their years with the team, and when/how they died.
Moe Howard - 1925 - 1970. Died 1975 lung cancer
Larry Fine - 1925 - 1970 Died 1975 stroke
Curly Howard 1934 - 1949 Died 1952 stroke/brain hemmorage
Shemp Howard 1925 - 1934, 1950 - 1955 Died 1955 stroke
Joe Besser 1956 - 1957 Died 1988 heart failure
Curly Joe 1959 - 1970 Died 1993 Pneumonia
"unofficial Stooge" Emil Sitka 1971 Died 1998 stroke
I loved the movie, I love the Three Stooges, and I hope you do too.
PS: Curly Howard was my favorite.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Coming Soon: 4/13/12
I hope everyone had a good Easter weekend. It still makes me wonder what rabbits and eggs have to do with the resurrection of Jesus. Anyone know? I don't know. It's just something on my mind. Let's change subjects and talk movies shall we?
1) The Cabin in the Woods: Five people go to the woods, stay in a cabin, and scary things happen.
The Good: Joss Whedon wrote it. Need I elaborate?
The Bad: How inovative and new could this really be?
Final Thoughts: I'd like to see it. I think Joss Whedon is an amazing writer and his first scary movie might be really fun to watch.
2) The Three Stooges: The Stooges try to earn enough money to save the orphanage they grew up in.
The Good: I love the Stooges! And Sean Hayes looks exactly like Larry Fine.
The Bad: It's REALLY dated humor. It might not appeal to anyone other than the nostalgic.
Final Thoughts: I grew up watching The Three Stooges. I'm going to laugh my butt off at every head slap and eye gouge.
3) Lockout: An ex-government agent must rescue the president's daughter from a high security prison riot.
The Good: Guy Pierce gets to ham it up in a mindless action movie.
The Bad: Everything about this movie screams cookie cutter. It's every action movie you've ever seen. Boring!
Final Thoughts: I have no interest in seeing something I probably could guess frame for frame. Bonus points if you get this reference.... Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the President?
4) Bad Ass: Frank Vega was a Vietnam veteran who came home only to be shunned by society. 40 years later he stops a violent crime and again becomes a hero. Only to have his best friend murdered and watch the cops do nothing about it.
The Good: If you liked Machete, you'll love this one. It even has Danny Trejo.
The Bad: If you don't like B movie/exploitation movies, you won't like this.
Final Thoughts: I want to see this movie more than any other this week. I loved Machete and every exploitative moment. The plot of this movie is all over the place, but I only see that making this movie that much more fun.
See you at the movies!
1) The Cabin in the Woods: Five people go to the woods, stay in a cabin, and scary things happen.
The Good: Joss Whedon wrote it. Need I elaborate?
The Bad: How inovative and new could this really be?
Final Thoughts: I'd like to see it. I think Joss Whedon is an amazing writer and his first scary movie might be really fun to watch.
2) The Three Stooges: The Stooges try to earn enough money to save the orphanage they grew up in.
The Good: I love the Stooges! And Sean Hayes looks exactly like Larry Fine.
The Bad: It's REALLY dated humor. It might not appeal to anyone other than the nostalgic.
Final Thoughts: I grew up watching The Three Stooges. I'm going to laugh my butt off at every head slap and eye gouge.
3) Lockout: An ex-government agent must rescue the president's daughter from a high security prison riot.
The Good: Guy Pierce gets to ham it up in a mindless action movie.
The Bad: Everything about this movie screams cookie cutter. It's every action movie you've ever seen. Boring!
Final Thoughts: I have no interest in seeing something I probably could guess frame for frame. Bonus points if you get this reference.... Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the President?
4) Bad Ass: Frank Vega was a Vietnam veteran who came home only to be shunned by society. 40 years later he stops a violent crime and again becomes a hero. Only to have his best friend murdered and watch the cops do nothing about it.
The Good: If you liked Machete, you'll love this one. It even has Danny Trejo.
The Bad: If you don't like B movie/exploitation movies, you won't like this.
Final Thoughts: I want to see this movie more than any other this week. I loved Machete and every exploitative moment. The plot of this movie is all over the place, but I only see that making this movie that much more fun.
See you at the movies!
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Thing (2011) review: Boo! Scared you?
I know comparisons to this movie are a bit unfair but let's be honest.. This movie wants to be in that category. This is a direct prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing made back in 1982. The Thing is one of my favorite movies from the 1980s. I wasn't really looking forward to this movie because it's really pointless. For those who haven't seen the 1982 movie, it begins in the Antartic with a Norweigan man shooting at a dog running away. This whole movie is the story of the Norweigans and their encounter with The Thing.
There isn't any way for me to write this review without discussing why it is weaker than the 1982 movie. But I will say that as a movie independant of the 1982 The Thing, this movie still sucks. As a horror movie it has far too many boo scares. Boo scares are not scary. They just aren't. Being startled is different from scary. What made the 1982 movie so scary was that you never knew who The Thing was. And it was smart about that. This movie was just annoying. Whenever anyone is remotely suspicious of someone being The Thing, it will just lash out and attack. It never did that in the 1982 movie.
Also, we see The Thing far too much. In the 1982 movie the only time we see it would be in dark shadows and always in some kind of transition phase. In this movie we always see it as this weird spider looking thing. And it looks rediculous. The CG just makes it look weird. It's an alien that is all mouth. I know it sounds wierd but it's so much more scary when I didn't know what it really looked like. It's such a great mystery. Not only could it be anyone, but even if it were to be in it's true form, would you know it?
In the 1982 movie, The Thing had an agenda. It was building a spaceship and was going to fly off. In this movie, I'm not really sure what it was trying to do. Many times it was doing things that guaranteed that it would not get away. One scene in perticular was on the helicopter. It probably wouldn't have been found out if it would've stayed calm and maintained it's cover but instead when the helicopter was going to land, it just freaked out and killed anyone in sight.
This was a weak movie saddling itself with being in the same universe as a classic sci-fi/horror movie relying on CG effects and B+ actors. Just watch the 1982 movie. It's amazing.
There isn't any way for me to write this review without discussing why it is weaker than the 1982 movie. But I will say that as a movie independant of the 1982 The Thing, this movie still sucks. As a horror movie it has far too many boo scares. Boo scares are not scary. They just aren't. Being startled is different from scary. What made the 1982 movie so scary was that you never knew who The Thing was. And it was smart about that. This movie was just annoying. Whenever anyone is remotely suspicious of someone being The Thing, it will just lash out and attack. It never did that in the 1982 movie.
Also, we see The Thing far too much. In the 1982 movie the only time we see it would be in dark shadows and always in some kind of transition phase. In this movie we always see it as this weird spider looking thing. And it looks rediculous. The CG just makes it look weird. It's an alien that is all mouth. I know it sounds wierd but it's so much more scary when I didn't know what it really looked like. It's such a great mystery. Not only could it be anyone, but even if it were to be in it's true form, would you know it?
In the 1982 movie, The Thing had an agenda. It was building a spaceship and was going to fly off. In this movie, I'm not really sure what it was trying to do. Many times it was doing things that guaranteed that it would not get away. One scene in perticular was on the helicopter. It probably wouldn't have been found out if it would've stayed calm and maintained it's cover but instead when the helicopter was going to land, it just freaked out and killed anyone in sight.
This was a weak movie saddling itself with being in the same universe as a classic sci-fi/horror movie relying on CG effects and B+ actors. Just watch the 1982 movie. It's amazing.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Movies I'd Like To See: April
Happy April Fool's Day! I know Easter is right around the corner so when you are finally sick after eating too much Easter chocolate, why not go see a movie? Here's some that I personally can't wait to see.
1) The Three Stooges: This is an old school type of comedy featuring three comedic legends once again slapping and eye gouging the ever pants loads out of each other. It's a throwback movie and I expect a mixed reaction but if you ever loved the Stooges, it's going to be a treat.
2) The Cabin in the Woods: It sounds like an old fashioned horror movie with a few twists from a wonderful director. Sounds like fun.
3) Bad Ass: If you liked Machete, you'll love this one. When Danny Trejo, Charles S. Dutton, and Ron Perlman get together... It's like the stars aligning in one great cosmic mess of testosterone. This is a guy's movie. And it will be glorious!
4) The Raven: I'm kinda on the fence with this one. It basically a stylized version of Bradberry's "Usher 2" but we're throwing in a crime drama/buddy movie with Edgar Allen Poe. Think of it kinda like Se7en but with less acting talent and a flimsier premise. One one hand it sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen but I'm such a fan of Poe's work. I don't know. It could be good.
5) Safe: Jason Statham. Nothing more. I'm just waiting for any movie he stars in to rival The Bank Job. I won't give up on him just yet. But I am getting close.
See you at the movies
1) The Three Stooges: This is an old school type of comedy featuring three comedic legends once again slapping and eye gouging the ever pants loads out of each other. It's a throwback movie and I expect a mixed reaction but if you ever loved the Stooges, it's going to be a treat.
2) The Cabin in the Woods: It sounds like an old fashioned horror movie with a few twists from a wonderful director. Sounds like fun.
3) Bad Ass: If you liked Machete, you'll love this one. When Danny Trejo, Charles S. Dutton, and Ron Perlman get together... It's like the stars aligning in one great cosmic mess of testosterone. This is a guy's movie. And it will be glorious!
4) The Raven: I'm kinda on the fence with this one. It basically a stylized version of Bradberry's "Usher 2" but we're throwing in a crime drama/buddy movie with Edgar Allen Poe. Think of it kinda like Se7en but with less acting talent and a flimsier premise. One one hand it sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen but I'm such a fan of Poe's work. I don't know. It could be good.
5) Safe: Jason Statham. Nothing more. I'm just waiting for any movie he stars in to rival The Bank Job. I won't give up on him just yet. But I am getting close.
See you at the movies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)