October had a lot of great movies. Let's see what we have for the first week of November!
1) A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas: Harold and Kumar get high, burn down a Christmas tree and have to replace it.
The Good: Giggling stoners and lovers of toilet humor are in for a treat.
The Bad: Just read the summary. Does it sound at all interesting?
Final Thoughts: It's Harold and Kumar. You know what kind of movie it is. Moving on.
2) Tower Heist: Blue-collar guys get screwed by a wall street con man and they want revenge. And hilarity ensues.
The Good: Ben Stiller + Alan Alda + Eddie Murphy. It's going to be campy fun. Throw in Matthew Broderick and it's going to be VERY over the top.
The Bad: It's a satire of Ocean's 11. Ocean's 11 was an action/comedy. This is just straight up comedy. Expect someone to get hit in the groin.
Final Thoughts: I'm interested to see how this cast plays off each other. The movie probably won't be all that great but the performance might salvage it.
3) Killing Bono: Two Irish brothers in the 1980s try to make it big in the music industry.
The Good: It's in the '80s and that means some radical '80s music. The soundtrack alone might be worth the ticket price.
The Bad: Anyone younger than 25 isn't going to know who Bono is let alone find this very interesting.
Final Thoughts: Give it a watch if you like '80s music. If not, it's got nothing for you.
4) The Son of No One: A cop with hidden baggage is assigned to his old neighborhood.
The Good: AL PACINO!
The Bad: It's not original and I don't expect it to really bring anything new or exciting to a tired cliche.
Final Thoughts: AL PACINO! And he's playing a cop! I don't care if I've seen it in other movies before. IT'S AL PACINO PLAYING A COP!
5) The Other F Word: A documentary about how the punk rockers of the '80s and '90s have changed their ways to become not only musicians but also fathers.
The Good: It's important to see people as people. Guys maybe we emulated growing up and see how much they've grown up as well.
The Bad: Same with Killing Bono, nobody under the age of 25 is going to really know anything about Flea, Ron Reyes, or Fat Mike.
Final Thoughts: It's a nostalgia documentary and if you are looking for the same rebels we grew up with, you're in for disappointment seeing them paying bills and going to PTA meetings. That being said, I think the message this movie has to deliver is more important than that. It's about how to be responsible to your loved ones while also rebelling against the ills of society. I want to see it.
6) Five Star Day: A guy gets a glowing horoscope on his birthday. But then has the worst day of his life. Convinced astrology is a hoax, he searches for others born on the same day and place as him.
The Good: ................................
The Bad: I could rage for hours on how stupid astrology is. This screams of contrivance.
Final Thoughts: WTF man. What do you expect from a movie like this? What's the story? Astrology is stupid? Yes. I know that. So, he goes out into the world to prove what he already knows? Why?
See you at the movies
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Movies I want to see: November
Hard to believe I forgot about this segement last month. No matter. October is just about finished so lets move on to movies in November. What's got me excited this month? Yeah this might be a short list.
1) Tower Heist. This is a bit of a perverse choice. I'm not expecting this to be anywhere as good as Ocean's 11, but Ben Stiller is one of those actors for me. Every movie of his is either really good or really bad. Mostly bad. Throw in Eddie Murphy and Alan Alda and what do you get? I have no idea. But I want to find out.
2) J. Edgar. I love history. It was my major in college so when a historical drama comes up, I get excited. For those who don't know, J. Edgar Hoover was the former head of the FBI. And there's more than one controversial story about him. Cross dressing being the least of them. Check it out.
3) Melancolia. This one has weird written all over it. But who cares? Kiefer Sutherland! It's being called a psychological disaster movie. I have no idea what that even means. But I'm interested and early reviews are very positive.
4) The Muppets. It's the Muppets! Enough said. I grew up watching the Muppets. I love these mop/puppet things. The Muppet movies usually are very good. Muppet Treasure Island while satirical was true to the spirit of the book and a lot of fun. AND THEY ARE BRINGING BACK THE MUPPET THEATER!!! The only thing that might sink this is.... of course.... Jack Black.
It's a short list unfortunately. Not many big name movies coming out in November. Remember this is a list of movies I personally want to see. So, movies like Twilight: Rising Dawn part 1 and Harold and Kumar Christmas are not going to be listed because I don't want to see them. God help me though I might end up seeing them anyway.
1) Tower Heist. This is a bit of a perverse choice. I'm not expecting this to be anywhere as good as Ocean's 11, but Ben Stiller is one of those actors for me. Every movie of his is either really good or really bad. Mostly bad. Throw in Eddie Murphy and Alan Alda and what do you get? I have no idea. But I want to find out.
2) J. Edgar. I love history. It was my major in college so when a historical drama comes up, I get excited. For those who don't know, J. Edgar Hoover was the former head of the FBI. And there's more than one controversial story about him. Cross dressing being the least of them. Check it out.
3) Melancolia. This one has weird written all over it. But who cares? Kiefer Sutherland! It's being called a psychological disaster movie. I have no idea what that even means. But I'm interested and early reviews are very positive.
4) The Muppets. It's the Muppets! Enough said. I grew up watching the Muppets. I love these mop/puppet things. The Muppet movies usually are very good. Muppet Treasure Island while satirical was true to the spirit of the book and a lot of fun. AND THEY ARE BRINGING BACK THE MUPPET THEATER!!! The only thing that might sink this is.... of course.... Jack Black.
It's a short list unfortunately. Not many big name movies coming out in November. Remember this is a list of movies I personally want to see. So, movies like Twilight: Rising Dawn part 1 and Harold and Kumar Christmas are not going to be listed because I don't want to see them. God help me though I might end up seeing them anyway.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
In Time Review: It's PUNishment
I have never been so pissed off at a movie. I've seen bad movies. I've seen bad movies just for the sake of watching a bad movie. I feel like I need an apology from everyone who made this movie. IN WRITING!
Why is it so bad? Let's start with the most annoying part first. The puns. It's a hour and 40 minute movie and they never stop with the "time" puns. I don't have time, can you spare a minute, time zones, time keepers, all the time in the world, and on and on and on.
Here's the story. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is a poor guy and since your life force (or time) is the only source of currency, he has about a day to live unless he makes more time. F*** EVEN I'M DOING THE STUPID PUNS! ARRGH!
One day a rich guy goes into the ghetto where Salas lives (time zone 12). He wants to die because he's over 100 years old and sick of living as a gorgeous 25 year old who has so much time he will probably never die. My a***h*** bleeds for his plight. Instead of getting himself killed my gangsters, called minutemen.... yes they are called minutemen....he gives his time to Salas with his only parting words are written on the window, "don't waste my time."
Ok I have to stop here for a minute. I want you to count how many time puns I just made in that last paragraph. Go ahead. Count it. This is what happens in the first ten or fifteen minutes of the movie! And oh believe me I'm not saying a bunch more that happens in that same fifteen minutes! "I'll give you a half hour so you can have a nice lunch." "That'll be four hours for a cup of coffee?" I WANTED TO SET FIRE TO THE THEATER!
So naturally all the things Will does with that time attracts the police's attention. Oh, did I say police? I mean the timekeepers. *ahem* And of course they are corrupt and want to kill Will. Why? Hell if I know. But that doesn't stop the movie from shoehorning in a subplot! Oh no. The timekeeper trying to catch Will knew Will's father. He was some kind of Robin Hood type. Stealing time from the rich and giving it to the poor. I like his father. He sounds like a good and noble man. He just might be the best character in the entire movie. BECAUSE HE ISN'T IN THE MOVIE! I'm not kidding. No pictures, no name, nothing... I was completely unaware Will had a father until the cop said he knew his father. I'm not going to call him a timekeeper. F*** that!
Which brings me to my second complaint. The writing SUCKS! There's symbolism, there's foreshadowing, and then there's this damn movie. Symbolism and foreshadowing are supposed to be subtle things. Things we aren't supposed to think about but in hindsight we recognize it and go, "oh yeah." IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE A SHOVEL UPSIDE OUR HEADS! Look no further than the title of the movie. "In Time." Throughout the movie we see a mission. With a nice green neon sign reading, "out of time". Get it. Get the joke there. Do you see the pun? Do you? DO YOU SEE IT. LOOK! IT'S A NEON SIGN! IT SAYS "OUT OF TIME!" BUT LATER WILL GETS LOTS OF TIME AND GIVES IT TO THE MISSION! NOW THEY HAVE TIME! THEY ARE "IN TIME!"
Or how about the foreshadowing of saying Will's father died in a fight. You see, they don't fight like we do. No. Time is transfered just by grabbing someone by the wrist. (That's really not an efficient way to keep one from dieing.) So, to fight, they lock wrists and the clocks on their arm runs down. Whoever can suck out the life force of their opponent first, wins. Just lovely. Guess what happens to the minutemen gangsters? Can you guess? Every twist and turn in this movie is telegraphed so poorly I swear a seventh grader wrote the script.
How about the message of the movie? That of course being a oh so lovely lecture on Social Darwinism. How the rich get to live forever because they are strong and get to suck the life out of the lower classes because they don't have much. In what might be the only classy thing this movie did was not including Queen's song "Who Wants To Live Forever." Instead they go with the horrendous line, "for few to be immortal, many must die." I will simply leave it at that. No doubt you can hear the hampster fall off the wheel. The mouse is losing his cheese. The screw is in the ball. In other words, THIS IF F***ING STUPID!
But I saved the best piece of stupid for last. You see, when you are born, there's a glowing clock already on your arm. It says you have one year. The clock starts to run down once you turn 25 years old. So, nobody ever ages over the age of 25. How does any of this work. SHUT UP. Will says he doesn't "have time" to think about these things. So we are just meant to accept that this is how this world works. You're born with a clock in your arm. It doesn't do anything for 25 years. Once you hit 25 it jolts your body and starts ticking. THIS IS PERFECTLY NORMAL! So people go to factories and make "time machines" that can collect your life energy so it can be stored in a bank.
Can you see why I hated this movie? Life energy slowly bleeding away until death. That's a great metaphor for the whole viewing experience.
Poll time. Talk amongst your friends. Which of these makes the least amount of sense?
1) Fighting exploding birds with coat hangers
2) Dracula fighting werewolves with a holy hand grenade
3) A psychic timetraveling demonic rabbit predicting the end of the world
4) Life energy being not only real, but measured in terms of minutes and used as currency in a world where everyone is essentially soul stealing vampires.
Bonus points if you can guess which movies these are. #4 is of course "In Time"
Why is it so bad? Let's start with the most annoying part first. The puns. It's a hour and 40 minute movie and they never stop with the "time" puns. I don't have time, can you spare a minute, time zones, time keepers, all the time in the world, and on and on and on.
Here's the story. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is a poor guy and since your life force (or time) is the only source of currency, he has about a day to live unless he makes more time. F*** EVEN I'M DOING THE STUPID PUNS! ARRGH!
One day a rich guy goes into the ghetto where Salas lives (time zone 12). He wants to die because he's over 100 years old and sick of living as a gorgeous 25 year old who has so much time he will probably never die. My a***h*** bleeds for his plight. Instead of getting himself killed my gangsters, called minutemen.... yes they are called minutemen....he gives his time to Salas with his only parting words are written on the window, "don't waste my time."
Ok I have to stop here for a minute. I want you to count how many time puns I just made in that last paragraph. Go ahead. Count it. This is what happens in the first ten or fifteen minutes of the movie! And oh believe me I'm not saying a bunch more that happens in that same fifteen minutes! "I'll give you a half hour so you can have a nice lunch." "That'll be four hours for a cup of coffee?" I WANTED TO SET FIRE TO THE THEATER!
So naturally all the things Will does with that time attracts the police's attention. Oh, did I say police? I mean the timekeepers. *ahem* And of course they are corrupt and want to kill Will. Why? Hell if I know. But that doesn't stop the movie from shoehorning in a subplot! Oh no. The timekeeper trying to catch Will knew Will's father. He was some kind of Robin Hood type. Stealing time from the rich and giving it to the poor. I like his father. He sounds like a good and noble man. He just might be the best character in the entire movie. BECAUSE HE ISN'T IN THE MOVIE! I'm not kidding. No pictures, no name, nothing... I was completely unaware Will had a father until the cop said he knew his father. I'm not going to call him a timekeeper. F*** that!
Which brings me to my second complaint. The writing SUCKS! There's symbolism, there's foreshadowing, and then there's this damn movie. Symbolism and foreshadowing are supposed to be subtle things. Things we aren't supposed to think about but in hindsight we recognize it and go, "oh yeah." IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE A SHOVEL UPSIDE OUR HEADS! Look no further than the title of the movie. "In Time." Throughout the movie we see a mission. With a nice green neon sign reading, "out of time". Get it. Get the joke there. Do you see the pun? Do you? DO YOU SEE IT. LOOK! IT'S A NEON SIGN! IT SAYS "OUT OF TIME!" BUT LATER WILL GETS LOTS OF TIME AND GIVES IT TO THE MISSION! NOW THEY HAVE TIME! THEY ARE "IN TIME!"
Or how about the foreshadowing of saying Will's father died in a fight. You see, they don't fight like we do. No. Time is transfered just by grabbing someone by the wrist. (That's really not an efficient way to keep one from dieing.) So, to fight, they lock wrists and the clocks on their arm runs down. Whoever can suck out the life force of their opponent first, wins. Just lovely. Guess what happens to the minutemen gangsters? Can you guess? Every twist and turn in this movie is telegraphed so poorly I swear a seventh grader wrote the script.
How about the message of the movie? That of course being a oh so lovely lecture on Social Darwinism. How the rich get to live forever because they are strong and get to suck the life out of the lower classes because they don't have much. In what might be the only classy thing this movie did was not including Queen's song "Who Wants To Live Forever." Instead they go with the horrendous line, "for few to be immortal, many must die." I will simply leave it at that. No doubt you can hear the hampster fall off the wheel. The mouse is losing his cheese. The screw is in the ball. In other words, THIS IF F***ING STUPID!
But I saved the best piece of stupid for last. You see, when you are born, there's a glowing clock already on your arm. It says you have one year. The clock starts to run down once you turn 25 years old. So, nobody ever ages over the age of 25. How does any of this work. SHUT UP. Will says he doesn't "have time" to think about these things. So we are just meant to accept that this is how this world works. You're born with a clock in your arm. It doesn't do anything for 25 years. Once you hit 25 it jolts your body and starts ticking. THIS IS PERFECTLY NORMAL! So people go to factories and make "time machines" that can collect your life energy so it can be stored in a bank.
Can you see why I hated this movie? Life energy slowly bleeding away until death. That's a great metaphor for the whole viewing experience.
Poll time. Talk amongst your friends. Which of these makes the least amount of sense?
1) Fighting exploding birds with coat hangers
2) Dracula fighting werewolves with a holy hand grenade
3) A psychic timetraveling demonic rabbit predicting the end of the world
4) Life energy being not only real, but measured in terms of minutes and used as currency in a world where everyone is essentially soul stealing vampires.
Bonus points if you can guess which movies these are. #4 is of course "In Time"
Monday, October 24, 2011
Coming Soon: 10/28/11
I might be more negative in this one. Sorry up front for that. I had a really bad day at work. Anyway, let's do something fun and look at movies.
1) Anonymus: A look at an old conspiracy about the authorship of the works of William Shakespeare and one possible explanation
The Good: It looks wonderful. The costumes are authentic and given a very 17th century feel.
The Bad: It's a political intrigue movie. Not exactly a known large crowd pleaser.
Final Thoughts: This one was requested I review from one of my friends on twitter. (hi Kim) And I can see why. It looks like a very well made movie and one that will prove to be interesting. If you are into politics, history, and willing to accept a little bit of whimsy, I think this one is worth watching.
2) The Rum Diary: A strange case of corporate greed and corruption.
The Good: Johnny Depp is in it. The guy is phenomonal. It's an interesting story. One grounded in the problems of today.
The Bad: Can we stop with the political lecture movies please?
Final Thoughts: It's good. But I still don't want to see it. I'm so tired of hearing about corporate greed, corrupt politics, and what not. I get it. America has been bought. That's hardly newsworthy. If you feel that strongly about it, do something. Join the protests. Do you really think making a movie about the problem impresses me?
3) In Time: In a world where your life span is the new currency, one man is framed for murder.
The Good: Oh God. Make the pain stop!
The Bad: My brain feels like a monkey used it for a toilet! A very large monkey on laxatives!
Final Thoughts: I would rather cut my lawn one blade of grass at a time with nail clippers than be within a hundred miles of any theater showing this!
4) Like Crazy: A love story where two people fall in love and separate.
The Good: Uhm... there's love in it.
The Bad: We've all had bad breakups. They suck. We move on. Apparently someone made a movie about it. Thrilling. If you have to leave the country, call on the telephone! The internet is everywhere! SKYPE!
Final Thoughts: More pretentious love crap from someone who read too many romance books.
5) 13 The story of a man sucked into a world of underground Russian Roulette tournaments.
The Good: You have to be F***ing kidding. Jasan Statham and Mickey Rourke are in this crap?
The Bad: It's Russian Roulette tournaments? Do I really need to explain how bad this is going to be? Ok. Here's something else. It's a remake. Game over man. Check please.
Final Thoughts: Remake. Russian. Roulette. Tournaments. The end.
6) The Double: Retired CIA agent and a rookie FBI agent team up to find an assassin.
The Good: Great cast. (Topher Grace aside) Richard Gere and Martin Sheen lend credibility immediately.
The Bad: I saw this movie. It was called the Jackyl. It had Bruce Willis. Back when he still had hair. It also had Richard Gere. It sucked.
See you at the movies.
1) Anonymus: A look at an old conspiracy about the authorship of the works of William Shakespeare and one possible explanation
The Good: It looks wonderful. The costumes are authentic and given a very 17th century feel.
The Bad: It's a political intrigue movie. Not exactly a known large crowd pleaser.
Final Thoughts: This one was requested I review from one of my friends on twitter. (hi Kim) And I can see why. It looks like a very well made movie and one that will prove to be interesting. If you are into politics, history, and willing to accept a little bit of whimsy, I think this one is worth watching.
2) The Rum Diary: A strange case of corporate greed and corruption.
The Good: Johnny Depp is in it. The guy is phenomonal. It's an interesting story. One grounded in the problems of today.
The Bad: Can we stop with the political lecture movies please?
Final Thoughts: It's good. But I still don't want to see it. I'm so tired of hearing about corporate greed, corrupt politics, and what not. I get it. America has been bought. That's hardly newsworthy. If you feel that strongly about it, do something. Join the protests. Do you really think making a movie about the problem impresses me?
3) In Time: In a world where your life span is the new currency, one man is framed for murder.
The Good: Oh God. Make the pain stop!
The Bad: My brain feels like a monkey used it for a toilet! A very large monkey on laxatives!
Final Thoughts: I would rather cut my lawn one blade of grass at a time with nail clippers than be within a hundred miles of any theater showing this!
4) Like Crazy: A love story where two people fall in love and separate.
The Good: Uhm... there's love in it.
The Bad: We've all had bad breakups. They suck. We move on. Apparently someone made a movie about it. Thrilling. If you have to leave the country, call on the telephone! The internet is everywhere! SKYPE!
Final Thoughts: More pretentious love crap from someone who read too many romance books.
5) 13 The story of a man sucked into a world of underground Russian Roulette tournaments.
The Good: You have to be F***ing kidding. Jasan Statham and Mickey Rourke are in this crap?
The Bad: It's Russian Roulette tournaments? Do I really need to explain how bad this is going to be? Ok. Here's something else. It's a remake. Game over man. Check please.
Final Thoughts: Remake. Russian. Roulette. Tournaments. The end.
6) The Double: Retired CIA agent and a rookie FBI agent team up to find an assassin.
The Good: Great cast. (Topher Grace aside) Richard Gere and Martin Sheen lend credibility immediately.
The Bad: I saw this movie. It was called the Jackyl. It had Bruce Willis. Back when he still had hair. It also had Richard Gere. It sucked.
See you at the movies.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Paranormal Activity 3 review:
I was looking forward to this movie. I had a hard day at work and I loved Paranormal Activity 2. I often use the Paranormal Activity movies as an example of truely scary movies and brilliant work with minimal budgets and practical effects. It's brilliant in its simplicity.
So, what did I think? I thought it could've been better. I'll get to that in a moment but I feel the need to explain something. Boo scares shouldn't be used so much. Here's why. When you are laying out a truely scary scene, the tension needs to build to a boiling point. That can be done with really minimal effort. To establish that there is something unseen in the house, you could swing a hanging light, you can do some subtle scary sounds, you can slowly move something. Anything that can possibly be written off as something mundane. Boo scares are like shooting a shotgun. Bang and it's done. You blew your load. That's your big payoff in one big strike. Sometimes you want that because it does give the audience a good jolt of energy. But when it's done so often, the audience become desensitized to it. They start to expect it more. Plus, all the tension leading up to that boo scare goes away and you have to start building again for the next scare.
Was the movie scary? Yes. Very much so. But I do feel like this latest movie was of a sorts a betrayal of what made the first one so compelling. There was much more emphasis on kinetic energy, boo scares, and a couple ill concieved CG effects. Paranormal activity 3 suffers because of the success of the other two movies. With success comes a lot more money. With more money comes the temptation to take the movie away from it's independant movie roots and add things that might seem cool in theory and you couldn't do previously because of budget restrictions.
Another reason I didn't like it as much as I thought I would was because this one opens up some serious plot holes. Some that really cripple the atmospheric feel of the trilogy in general. They were gaping holes in the story and they sucked me right out of it. Here's what I mean and what I think I would've done differently.
1) Who's watching the tapes? In the beginning of the movie, we establish that Katie has these tapes of their childhood. A time that they forgot about. (More on that later) But a few moments later we are in Paranormal Activity 2 just after the house is burlarized. The only thing stolen were these homemade movies from about 20 years ago. Leading the audience to one of two conclusions: a) the burglars are watching these tapes and we never established that fact or b) the ghost/demon/spirit thing didn't want anyone to see these tapes and probably hid them somewhere or destroyed them. Either way, we have a problem. It's never established how or why we are watching these old VHS videos.
My solution: Instead of having the tapes stolen, think of it like we are the police. There's been a brutal murder and we are trying to solve it. We know that the house has cameras everywhere. (Paranormal Activity 2) We know this family has this weird obsession with taping everything. We see the tapes and we see the scene where Katie is talking about all the weird things that happened to them while they were kids. Ok. That gives the police officer an idea to go back and look at all the old tapes of the time she was talking about. That brings the audience into the movie as a character playing a role, thus making the sensations more realistic.
2) The children had their memories erased. So how can Katie remember what happened in Paranormal Activity 2?
My solution: make it something vague. Sometimes she has bad dreams about evil ghosts. Something like that would've helped.
3) Why didn't the mother know what was going on? This gets into spoiler territory but it is a nagging question and one I don't have an answer for. I won't go into detail because I don't wish to spoil the movie (I only do that for bad movies) but let's say something is established later on in the movie and logically speaking, the mother should've been at least somewhat knowledgeable about what was happening.
One of the major characteristics of this series is vagueness. We never see the spirit. We never really know what it wants. We never know why it lashes out. Even when lashing out is counter-productive to it's supposed goal. And we never learn any effective way to combat the spirit. But this isn't a story. It's an experience. The story comes from the trailer. "We have these tapes. I don't know what to make of it, but here it is. It's scary. Your guess is as good as mine."
If you love scary movies, it's hard to go wrong with this trilogy.
So, what did I think? I thought it could've been better. I'll get to that in a moment but I feel the need to explain something. Boo scares shouldn't be used so much. Here's why. When you are laying out a truely scary scene, the tension needs to build to a boiling point. That can be done with really minimal effort. To establish that there is something unseen in the house, you could swing a hanging light, you can do some subtle scary sounds, you can slowly move something. Anything that can possibly be written off as something mundane. Boo scares are like shooting a shotgun. Bang and it's done. You blew your load. That's your big payoff in one big strike. Sometimes you want that because it does give the audience a good jolt of energy. But when it's done so often, the audience become desensitized to it. They start to expect it more. Plus, all the tension leading up to that boo scare goes away and you have to start building again for the next scare.
Was the movie scary? Yes. Very much so. But I do feel like this latest movie was of a sorts a betrayal of what made the first one so compelling. There was much more emphasis on kinetic energy, boo scares, and a couple ill concieved CG effects. Paranormal activity 3 suffers because of the success of the other two movies. With success comes a lot more money. With more money comes the temptation to take the movie away from it's independant movie roots and add things that might seem cool in theory and you couldn't do previously because of budget restrictions.
Another reason I didn't like it as much as I thought I would was because this one opens up some serious plot holes. Some that really cripple the atmospheric feel of the trilogy in general. They were gaping holes in the story and they sucked me right out of it. Here's what I mean and what I think I would've done differently.
1) Who's watching the tapes? In the beginning of the movie, we establish that Katie has these tapes of their childhood. A time that they forgot about. (More on that later) But a few moments later we are in Paranormal Activity 2 just after the house is burlarized. The only thing stolen were these homemade movies from about 20 years ago. Leading the audience to one of two conclusions: a) the burglars are watching these tapes and we never established that fact or b) the ghost/demon/spirit thing didn't want anyone to see these tapes and probably hid them somewhere or destroyed them. Either way, we have a problem. It's never established how or why we are watching these old VHS videos.
My solution: Instead of having the tapes stolen, think of it like we are the police. There's been a brutal murder and we are trying to solve it. We know that the house has cameras everywhere. (Paranormal Activity 2) We know this family has this weird obsession with taping everything. We see the tapes and we see the scene where Katie is talking about all the weird things that happened to them while they were kids. Ok. That gives the police officer an idea to go back and look at all the old tapes of the time she was talking about. That brings the audience into the movie as a character playing a role, thus making the sensations more realistic.
2) The children had their memories erased. So how can Katie remember what happened in Paranormal Activity 2?
My solution: make it something vague. Sometimes she has bad dreams about evil ghosts. Something like that would've helped.
3) Why didn't the mother know what was going on? This gets into spoiler territory but it is a nagging question and one I don't have an answer for. I won't go into detail because I don't wish to spoil the movie (I only do that for bad movies) but let's say something is established later on in the movie and logically speaking, the mother should've been at least somewhat knowledgeable about what was happening.
One of the major characteristics of this series is vagueness. We never see the spirit. We never really know what it wants. We never know why it lashes out. Even when lashing out is counter-productive to it's supposed goal. And we never learn any effective way to combat the spirit. But this isn't a story. It's an experience. The story comes from the trailer. "We have these tapes. I don't know what to make of it, but here it is. It's scary. Your guess is as good as mine."
If you love scary movies, it's hard to go wrong with this trilogy.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Coming Soon: 10/21/11
Not too many good movies came out last week. Let's see what we have this week.
1) Paranormal Activity 3. Two little girls are haunted by a mysterious force.
The Good: The other Paranormal Activity movies are awesome and this one we finally see how it all started.
The Bad: This one looks more heavy on kinetic energy rather than atmosphere. Expect a lot more people getting thrown around by the invisible monster.
Final Thoughts: The entire series played out in reverse order to great effect. It gives us the feeling that we are the dectective of a brutal murder case and we find all these tapes. We are trying to understand what is happening but can't quite believe what we see. Now it's the payoff. I'm worried about the possibility of disappointment because like I said, it was a complete mystery for the last two movies. Will it live up to the hype? We'll see.
2) The Three Musketeers. Based (loosely) on the Alexandre Dumas novel, the musketeers must go on a secret mission to protect the dignity of the monarchy.
The Good: The action looks great if a bit cartoonish.
The Bad: It's Paul WS Anderson. The same director that made such classic garbage as Resident Evil, AVP: Aliens Vs Predator, and Mortal Kombat. Expect the same level of quality.
Final Thoughts: I've already seen this movie. I called it as intelletually stimulating as a Three Musketeers chocolate bar and I stand by that opinion It's flashing and dumb. But it is entertaining... when it completely ignores the plot. See it if you must, otherwise ignore this one.
3) Johnny English Reborn: Johnny English once again must save the world from war when the Premier of China is targeted for assassination.
The Good: Rowan Atkinson is a comedic legend.
The Bad: Rowan Atkinson is a comedic legend from twenty years ago. He hasn't put out a good movie since 2001 with Rat Race and he wasn't a main character in that one.
Final Thoughts: The first Johnny English movie bombed. Why would you expect different from the sequel?
4) Martha Marcy May Marlene: A psychological thriller about a woman going insane after escaping from a cult.
The Good: It looks really creepy and the actors play well off each other perfectly.
The Bad: I don't know where they are going with it. They make it sound like she's haunted by the memories and it makes her insane, but the trailer is all jumbled.
Final Thoughts: I love psychological thrillers. I love movies like The Black Swan or Shutter Island. I don't know if this movie will measure up to those, but I want to see this one.
5) Oranges and Sunshine. The story of a woman who exposes an appauling human rights scandal in England.
The Good: The premise of the movie is intriguing. Children told their parents are dead and then sent to Australia where they are abused and made into slave laborers. And one woman reunites thousands of families. It's touching.
The Bad: It's a real story. It's hard not to feel outraged something like this can happen but overjoyed that it does have a happy ending.
Final Thoughts: It's an oscar movie. You are meant to feel sad, outraged, and ultimately overcome with happiness when the families are reunited. It'll move you. I recommend it.
6) Margin Call: It's about investment bankers just before the financial collapse in 2008. Then a low level employee uncovers something big.
The Good: Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons. Can't go wrong with this.
The Bad: I've seen this movie before. A lot. We get it. Wall Street screwed us.
Final Thoughts: I'm so tired of movies with a political agenda. We get it. Wall Street screwed up the economy and they own the government. Instead of making a movie about it and commanding million dollar paychecks to further your political cause, how about you do something constructive if you feel that passionately about it?
See you at the movies
1) Paranormal Activity 3. Two little girls are haunted by a mysterious force.
The Good: The other Paranormal Activity movies are awesome and this one we finally see how it all started.
The Bad: This one looks more heavy on kinetic energy rather than atmosphere. Expect a lot more people getting thrown around by the invisible monster.
Final Thoughts: The entire series played out in reverse order to great effect. It gives us the feeling that we are the dectective of a brutal murder case and we find all these tapes. We are trying to understand what is happening but can't quite believe what we see. Now it's the payoff. I'm worried about the possibility of disappointment because like I said, it was a complete mystery for the last two movies. Will it live up to the hype? We'll see.
2) The Three Musketeers. Based (loosely) on the Alexandre Dumas novel, the musketeers must go on a secret mission to protect the dignity of the monarchy.
The Good: The action looks great if a bit cartoonish.
The Bad: It's Paul WS Anderson. The same director that made such classic garbage as Resident Evil, AVP: Aliens Vs Predator, and Mortal Kombat. Expect the same level of quality.
Final Thoughts: I've already seen this movie. I called it as intelletually stimulating as a Three Musketeers chocolate bar and I stand by that opinion It's flashing and dumb. But it is entertaining... when it completely ignores the plot. See it if you must, otherwise ignore this one.
3) Johnny English Reborn: Johnny English once again must save the world from war when the Premier of China is targeted for assassination.
The Good: Rowan Atkinson is a comedic legend.
The Bad: Rowan Atkinson is a comedic legend from twenty years ago. He hasn't put out a good movie since 2001 with Rat Race and he wasn't a main character in that one.
Final Thoughts: The first Johnny English movie bombed. Why would you expect different from the sequel?
4) Martha Marcy May Marlene: A psychological thriller about a woman going insane after escaping from a cult.
The Good: It looks really creepy and the actors play well off each other perfectly.
The Bad: I don't know where they are going with it. They make it sound like she's haunted by the memories and it makes her insane, but the trailer is all jumbled.
Final Thoughts: I love psychological thrillers. I love movies like The Black Swan or Shutter Island. I don't know if this movie will measure up to those, but I want to see this one.
5) Oranges and Sunshine. The story of a woman who exposes an appauling human rights scandal in England.
The Good: The premise of the movie is intriguing. Children told their parents are dead and then sent to Australia where they are abused and made into slave laborers. And one woman reunites thousands of families. It's touching.
The Bad: It's a real story. It's hard not to feel outraged something like this can happen but overjoyed that it does have a happy ending.
Final Thoughts: It's an oscar movie. You are meant to feel sad, outraged, and ultimately overcome with happiness when the families are reunited. It'll move you. I recommend it.
6) Margin Call: It's about investment bankers just before the financial collapse in 2008. Then a low level employee uncovers something big.
The Good: Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons. Can't go wrong with this.
The Bad: I've seen this movie before. A lot. We get it. Wall Street screwed us.
Final Thoughts: I'm so tired of movies with a political agenda. We get it. Wall Street screwed up the economy and they own the government. Instead of making a movie about it and commanding million dollar paychecks to further your political cause, how about you do something constructive if you feel that passionately about it?
See you at the movies
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Real Steel review: They rock'em and they sock'em
I honestly wasn't all that excited to see this movie. I made the jokes like everyone else. It's Rocky with Rock'em Sock'em Robots. And largely, that is this movie. But that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. I enjoyed it. There's a lot of good boxing scenes, the CGI is not a jarring as I feared, and you get involved.
The primary focus of the movie is the father and son relationship between Charlie (Hugh Jackman) and Max (Dakota Goyo). Max's mother dies and that means Charlie must now step up and take care of the son he abandoned a long time ago. In the mix is Max's mother's sister, named Debra.(Hope Davis) (Yes I did have to say it like that because we never learn Max's mother's name. More on that later.) Debra is married to a rich man named Marvin. (James Rebhorn) Charlie gets the idea that he will sell custody to Debra and Marvin in exchange for $100,000. The catch is that they are going away to Italy so Charlie will have to take Max for the summer. And they spend their summer with fighting robots.
While I did have fun watching the movie, I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the embarrassing levels of characterization. The people in this movie are just as robotic as their CG counterparts. Max is an eleven year old kid but he seems far more emotionally mature than anyone else. His mom died, his father sold him to his aunt, and never once did he ever bring up his mom. Kid. It's okay to wake up in the middle of the night crying. We'd understand. He often is more rational than Charlie.
Charlie is your standard wash-out bumb. He owes money to just about everyone, he's quick to gamble what little he has, and is generally more reckless than a fully functional human being after an all-night bender.
The rest of the characters are one note if they even manage to get that much attention. They are all plot devices meant to be thrown at Charlie and Max and have no other identity other than the plot needs them. We have Bailey the love interest. That's about it for her. There's Mashido the Japanese robot builder guy. Uhm... he builds very strong robots... and... Then we have rich Russian lady. And Cowboy Redneck. And there's Black Gangster. Oh don't forget super large mohawk guy.
But what really sank the movie a few notches was the characterization of Max's mom. Or I should say complete lack thereof. Never do we see a picture of her, get any kind of fond rememberances of her, and I know her name was only said aloud ONE TIME! Oh yeah. Really warms my heart to know that she raises a son alone and Max forgets her immediately. Charlie never asks about her, Max never talks about her, she is completely forgotten. And how did she die? It's bad enough the only thing I know about her is that she's a woman and dead, but you couldn't throw in a line saying she was in a car accident or something? NOTHING! Fine.
Overall, the CGI is great, the boxing is good, the acting is passable, and the script is terrible. But still a fun movie.
The primary focus of the movie is the father and son relationship between Charlie (Hugh Jackman) and Max (Dakota Goyo). Max's mother dies and that means Charlie must now step up and take care of the son he abandoned a long time ago. In the mix is Max's mother's sister, named Debra.(Hope Davis) (Yes I did have to say it like that because we never learn Max's mother's name. More on that later.) Debra is married to a rich man named Marvin. (James Rebhorn) Charlie gets the idea that he will sell custody to Debra and Marvin in exchange for $100,000. The catch is that they are going away to Italy so Charlie will have to take Max for the summer. And they spend their summer with fighting robots.
While I did have fun watching the movie, I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the embarrassing levels of characterization. The people in this movie are just as robotic as their CG counterparts. Max is an eleven year old kid but he seems far more emotionally mature than anyone else. His mom died, his father sold him to his aunt, and never once did he ever bring up his mom. Kid. It's okay to wake up in the middle of the night crying. We'd understand. He often is more rational than Charlie.
Charlie is your standard wash-out bumb. He owes money to just about everyone, he's quick to gamble what little he has, and is generally more reckless than a fully functional human being after an all-night bender.
The rest of the characters are one note if they even manage to get that much attention. They are all plot devices meant to be thrown at Charlie and Max and have no other identity other than the plot needs them. We have Bailey the love interest. That's about it for her. There's Mashido the Japanese robot builder guy. Uhm... he builds very strong robots... and... Then we have rich Russian lady. And Cowboy Redneck. And there's Black Gangster. Oh don't forget super large mohawk guy.
But what really sank the movie a few notches was the characterization of Max's mom. Or I should say complete lack thereof. Never do we see a picture of her, get any kind of fond rememberances of her, and I know her name was only said aloud ONE TIME! Oh yeah. Really warms my heart to know that she raises a son alone and Max forgets her immediately. Charlie never asks about her, Max never talks about her, she is completely forgotten. And how did she die? It's bad enough the only thing I know about her is that she's a woman and dead, but you couldn't throw in a line saying she was in a car accident or something? NOTHING! Fine.
Overall, the CGI is great, the boxing is good, the acting is passable, and the script is terrible. But still a fun movie.
From the Vault: John Carpenter's The Thing
With the prequel/remake hitting theaters it's only fair to talk about the original. Actually, even this movie is a remake of an earlier movie called, "The Thing From Another World" made back in 1951.
This has to be one of the best horror/sci-fi movies ever made. The Thing makes perfect use of practical effects. The special effects are not CGI but uses stop motion animation. The musical score created by Ennio Morricone while simplistic is striking and memorable. The mimicing of the heartbeat is heard throughout the movie.
The movie starts with a lone dog running across the snowy landscape being shot at by helicopter. We learn why soon enough when the turns out to be the mysterious alien "thing". What makes the "thing" so scary is the same reason we are scared of the shark in Jaws. We never see it. When we do see it, we usually see it in a transition phase. We see it in a process of absorbing someone or tearing itself apart to form something else. The thing was intelligent. It adapted to better conseal itself. It would purposefully leave false information pointing to someone else as the thing. When attacked, it would change to defend itself. All while keeping a low profile in hiding and building a spaceship without anyone ever noticing.
The atmosphere of the movie should be a lesson to all future filmmakers. It's set in Antartica but they shot the movie in northern Canada. And it was cold. They saw their breath and the cold added to the danger and the isolation the characters felt. Since they felt it, the audience felt it. In most monster/slasher movies, one complaint people have is that they never run away. In this movie, running away is just as life threatening as staying. They would freeze to death if they just ran away.
The characters are all memorable and it doesn't take long to learn much about them either. Take MacReady. We learn so much about him in a single scene. We have a scene where MacReady is playing chess on the computer. While he's playing he has a glass of scotch in his hand. The computer beats him and he very calmly dumps the drink into the computer frying it. Then he just says, "Cheating bitch" just as calmly. What did we learn about MacReady from this scene? We learned that he is intelligent, impulsive, a drunk, and abnormally calm. All things that come into play later when he takes charge after the thing is revealed. He's the one to think of the idea of a blood test. He's the one holding a gun to people's heads ready to kill them if they don't do what he says.
If you haven't seen this movie yet, it will blow you away. But I offer this challenge. For those that love CGI in movies, watch this and see how good practical effects look and how much of a different reaction you get from the actors when they actually see something in front of them rather than leaving it up to their imagination.
This movie must be watched. It's too good to pass up.
This has to be one of the best horror/sci-fi movies ever made. The Thing makes perfect use of practical effects. The special effects are not CGI but uses stop motion animation. The musical score created by Ennio Morricone while simplistic is striking and memorable. The mimicing of the heartbeat is heard throughout the movie.
The movie starts with a lone dog running across the snowy landscape being shot at by helicopter. We learn why soon enough when the turns out to be the mysterious alien "thing". What makes the "thing" so scary is the same reason we are scared of the shark in Jaws. We never see it. When we do see it, we usually see it in a transition phase. We see it in a process of absorbing someone or tearing itself apart to form something else. The thing was intelligent. It adapted to better conseal itself. It would purposefully leave false information pointing to someone else as the thing. When attacked, it would change to defend itself. All while keeping a low profile in hiding and building a spaceship without anyone ever noticing.
The atmosphere of the movie should be a lesson to all future filmmakers. It's set in Antartica but they shot the movie in northern Canada. And it was cold. They saw their breath and the cold added to the danger and the isolation the characters felt. Since they felt it, the audience felt it. In most monster/slasher movies, one complaint people have is that they never run away. In this movie, running away is just as life threatening as staying. They would freeze to death if they just ran away.
The characters are all memorable and it doesn't take long to learn much about them either. Take MacReady. We learn so much about him in a single scene. We have a scene where MacReady is playing chess on the computer. While he's playing he has a glass of scotch in his hand. The computer beats him and he very calmly dumps the drink into the computer frying it. Then he just says, "Cheating bitch" just as calmly. What did we learn about MacReady from this scene? We learned that he is intelligent, impulsive, a drunk, and abnormally calm. All things that come into play later when he takes charge after the thing is revealed. He's the one to think of the idea of a blood test. He's the one holding a gun to people's heads ready to kill them if they don't do what he says.
If you haven't seen this movie yet, it will blow you away. But I offer this challenge. For those that love CGI in movies, watch this and see how good practical effects look and how much of a different reaction you get from the actors when they actually see something in front of them rather than leaving it up to their imagination.
This movie must be watched. It's too good to pass up.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Three Musketeers Review: It's about as nourishing as the candy bar.
Just from the trailers alone, you know this isn't going to be anything like the book. There's an airship for crying out loud! And is there any other perfect symbol for this entire movie? An airship?!? Something so stupid, cheesy, out of place, and flat out glorious that it borders on brilliant?
Don't worry, those that like to read because I get irritated... it's coming. But right now I want to mark out a little. It's campy as all hell and it starts immediately. We are introduced to Athos as a ninja. Yes. Athos (Luke Evans) is a ninja. Next is Aramus (Matthew MacFadyen). He's also a ninja but he's also a pimp with the ladies. Then, there's Porthos (Ray Stevensen). Yeah he's Hercules. Watching these opening fight scenes was just glorious. They didn't zoom in and shake the camera. Instead they went the other route and did it in slow motion. It works so much better I can't even describe it. Just being able to see what is happening is such a plus.
Anyway, they sneak into Da Vinci's secret library and steal the plans to the airship. Don't worry I'm not going to spoil the movie, but really this isn't a movie you watch for the plot. I'll just say that the plot creeps in right after the musketeers are celebrating their successful mission. If you are familiar with movie cliches then you should already know what happens. I'll let it go unsaid in this review.
We fast forward a year later so we can be introduced to D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman). Here the movie follows the book a little. D'Artagnan leaves his home to become a musketeer like his father. Yeah, this scene sucks but it gets better. He runs afoul of Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen), the one eyed captain of Cardinal Richelieu's (Christoph Waltz) private army.
Overall, the acting is pretty good. I was most impressed not by the main stars but by James Corden. Who is he? Well, he's not Chris Farley but he does a great impression. He's our comedy relief character during the movie. He's Porthos' man servant. He reminded me a little of Donnie from The Big Lebowski. Mostly for how many times he was told to shut up and how badly he was treated.
So, now for some unbridled anger. If you are a fan of the book, like I am, then this movie is an embarrassment. The technology doesn't fit the time period. It's like having a mechanical spider in the old west. Oh yeah. They did that too. Screw you Wild Wild West. Just to save my own sanity I won't go into the butchering of history. But what pissed me off the most as a movie goer was the blatent sequel bating! It's bad enough this movie used just about every movie cliche possible, but it had to go that extra little bit and tag on sequel bait! I really enjoyed this campy version up until that happened. No it didn't ruin the whole movie for me, but it is a horrible way to end a movie. If you want a sequel, that's what retcon is for! Just use the sequel bait as the lead in for your sequel! Nobody is going to see this and be excited for a sequel! What's wrong with you!
The director Paul W.S. Anderson just loves making horrible movies. And it shows. His other works include: Mortal Kombat, DOA: Dead or Alive, AVP: Aliens Vs Predator, and the Resident Evil series. Even when he makes a somewhat good movie like Event Horizon it's still just average.
Ok. Anger is leaving. Is it a good movie? No. But it is enjoyable. If you like watching weird stuff and pretty good action scenes, (with an unnecessarily confusing plot at times) than it's pretty good. Honestly, the plot of the movie interferes with the fun. So, grab your popcorn, check your brain at the door, and have a little fun.
PS If you want a good Three Musketeers movie, watch the 1973 version. And Mr. Anderson can go back to making horrible video game movies.
Don't worry, those that like to read because I get irritated... it's coming. But right now I want to mark out a little. It's campy as all hell and it starts immediately. We are introduced to Athos as a ninja. Yes. Athos (Luke Evans) is a ninja. Next is Aramus (Matthew MacFadyen). He's also a ninja but he's also a pimp with the ladies. Then, there's Porthos (Ray Stevensen). Yeah he's Hercules. Watching these opening fight scenes was just glorious. They didn't zoom in and shake the camera. Instead they went the other route and did it in slow motion. It works so much better I can't even describe it. Just being able to see what is happening is such a plus.
Anyway, they sneak into Da Vinci's secret library and steal the plans to the airship. Don't worry I'm not going to spoil the movie, but really this isn't a movie you watch for the plot. I'll just say that the plot creeps in right after the musketeers are celebrating their successful mission. If you are familiar with movie cliches then you should already know what happens. I'll let it go unsaid in this review.
We fast forward a year later so we can be introduced to D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman). Here the movie follows the book a little. D'Artagnan leaves his home to become a musketeer like his father. Yeah, this scene sucks but it gets better. He runs afoul of Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen), the one eyed captain of Cardinal Richelieu's (Christoph Waltz) private army.
Overall, the acting is pretty good. I was most impressed not by the main stars but by James Corden. Who is he? Well, he's not Chris Farley but he does a great impression. He's our comedy relief character during the movie. He's Porthos' man servant. He reminded me a little of Donnie from The Big Lebowski. Mostly for how many times he was told to shut up and how badly he was treated.
So, now for some unbridled anger. If you are a fan of the book, like I am, then this movie is an embarrassment. The technology doesn't fit the time period. It's like having a mechanical spider in the old west. Oh yeah. They did that too. Screw you Wild Wild West. Just to save my own sanity I won't go into the butchering of history. But what pissed me off the most as a movie goer was the blatent sequel bating! It's bad enough this movie used just about every movie cliche possible, but it had to go that extra little bit and tag on sequel bait! I really enjoyed this campy version up until that happened. No it didn't ruin the whole movie for me, but it is a horrible way to end a movie. If you want a sequel, that's what retcon is for! Just use the sequel bait as the lead in for your sequel! Nobody is going to see this and be excited for a sequel! What's wrong with you!
The director Paul W.S. Anderson just loves making horrible movies. And it shows. His other works include: Mortal Kombat, DOA: Dead or Alive, AVP: Aliens Vs Predator, and the Resident Evil series. Even when he makes a somewhat good movie like Event Horizon it's still just average.
Ok. Anger is leaving. Is it a good movie? No. But it is enjoyable. If you like watching weird stuff and pretty good action scenes, (with an unnecessarily confusing plot at times) than it's pretty good. Honestly, the plot of the movie interferes with the fun. So, grab your popcorn, check your brain at the door, and have a little fun.
PS If you want a good Three Musketeers movie, watch the 1973 version. And Mr. Anderson can go back to making horrible video game movies.
Monday, October 10, 2011
From the Vault: Birdemic Shock and Terror
Made fairly recently in 2009, Birdemic: Shock and Terror is a movie you have to see to believe. The very idea that a movie this bad exists can't be adequately described. It's the ultimate drinking game. Take a drink whenever the director screws up the most basic filmmaking 101 no-nos. I'm not kidding when I say there are scenes in the movie that are not just choppy and pointless, but sometimes out of focus. They hold on finished scenes and it looks like the actors finished their lines and are waiting to go home.
I think the most accurate description I can think of comes from the Superman comics. In the Superman comics, Darkseid scours the universe looking for what he calls the "anti-life equation." An equation that would give total control over free will and mathematically proves the futility of existence. I call Birdemic the "anti-movie equation."
Birdemic is a story about a guy falling in love. And then birds start attacking people and exploding. I wish I was kidding. Armed with trusty coat hangers (no you read that correctly) four friends try valiently to fight off the birds while learning a valuable lesson about polluting. No I'm not making any of this up.
It simply has to be seen to be believed. Just be sure to have your Birdemic: Shock and Terror movie survival kit. Your standard Birdemic: Shock and Terror movie survival kit comes with no fewer than two snarky friends to help you make fun of it, 3 kinds of chips, salsa of your choice, several ready cans of coke, a rubber mallet for that wonderful feeling of smashing the DVD to pieces once it's over.
Enjoy!
I think the most accurate description I can think of comes from the Superman comics. In the Superman comics, Darkseid scours the universe looking for what he calls the "anti-life equation." An equation that would give total control over free will and mathematically proves the futility of existence. I call Birdemic the "anti-movie equation."
Birdemic is a story about a guy falling in love. And then birds start attacking people and exploding. I wish I was kidding. Armed with trusty coat hangers (no you read that correctly) four friends try valiently to fight off the birds while learning a valuable lesson about polluting. No I'm not making any of this up.
It simply has to be seen to be believed. Just be sure to have your Birdemic: Shock and Terror movie survival kit. Your standard Birdemic: Shock and Terror movie survival kit comes with no fewer than two snarky friends to help you make fun of it, 3 kinds of chips, salsa of your choice, several ready cans of coke, a rubber mallet for that wonderful feeling of smashing the DVD to pieces once it's over.
Enjoy!
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Coming Soon: 10/14/11
A brand new week, and a brand new list of movies coming to theaters. Let's see.
1) Footloose: The remake of the '80s classic, a young kid from the big city moves to a small town with repressive ordinances against dancing and rock music.
The Good: The original is awesome. The music is amazing. A modern look at the 1984 classic sounds like a lot of fun.
The Bad: It's an updated remake. That means it's possible that we aren't going to have a rockin' '80s soundtrack. God help me if instead of Kenny Logins we get Katy Perry.
Final Thoughts: I'm not too excited about this. And there will be rage if "Footloose" by Kenny Logins isn't included in this movie. But I'm guessing they aren't that stupid. So, I'm waiting for a radical rockin' good time.
2) The Thing: Not so much of a remake but a prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter remake. A paleontologist joins a Norwegan research team in Antartica when they discover an alien spacecraft and dead aliens.
The Good: It isn't a remake. This will be an interesting spin on the opening scene from the 1982 "The Thing"
The Bad: If you already saw the 1982 movie, you know how this movie ends. Still, the idea is interesting and seeing some updated CG aliens might be good.
Final Thoughts: The effects in the 1982 "The Thing" were disgusting. Every time the alien changed, it looked like it ripped itself apart. With new computer graphics, I'm expecting a lot more disturbing images. If they don't overdo it on the effects and stay true to the story about alien infiltration and paranoia, this will be a welcome addition to a great movie.
3) The Big Year: A buddy road-trip style movie with Steve Martin, Jack Black, and Owen Wilson as three guys forget their resonsibilities and follow their dreams for one year.
The Good: Three great comedians working together.
The Bad: I've seen this movie before. It was called "The Bucket List" and it was a better story than three guys ditching their lives out of boredom.
Final Thoughts: "The Bucket List" wasn't even that great a movie with Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicolson. Stop me if you've heard this before... Owen Wilson plays a womanizing pretty boy... Jack Black plays a low-life screw up, and Steve Martin plays a retired business exec. Yeah. Just about every movie these guys have ever starred in. I'm sorry, but the "Carpe Diem!" message loses something when it's three guys just going off on an adventure. In the Bucket List it was two old guys at the end of their lives with a few months to live. It's a watered down version of a movie that wasn't that good in the first place.
4) Fireflies in the Garden: A movie about a highly successful family of four and how they feel about each other.
The Good: The cast is excellent.
The Bad: It's another pretentious movie meant to be melodramatic. You know, those movies actors do when they want to win an Oscar.
Final Thoughts: I'm sure the acting will be great and each one will be trying their hardest to make you feel something; but the movie is going to suck. Here's the movie: the perfect family has problems. There. Done. Next movie.
5) The Skin I Live In: Dr. Robert Ledgard, a plastic sergeon spends years developing a new kind of skin after his wife was burned in a car accident. But to complete it, he needs human subjects.
The Good: *cricket sounds*
The Bad: Here's a better title, "The Bride of Frankenstein Gets a Facelift." Super skin? Are you serious?
Final Thoughts: The Trailer looks stupid. It is aboslutely no help in uncoding what this movie is even about. A plastic surgeon puts super skin grafts on a mentally unstable woman. I think. Skip it.
6) Trespass: A family with a neglectful father/husband, a career-driven wife/mother and a rebellious teenager must band together to survive a home invasion.
The Good: Nicholas Cage is in it. That's all I need to know.
The Bad: It's with director Joel Schumacher. Yes, the guy who did Batman and Robin.
Final Thoughts: This movie is going to be a cheese fest. Probably to the point where it stops being fun and is just annoying. But, it has Nick Cage! So, I have to see it. I don't expect you to.
See you at the movies!
1) Footloose: The remake of the '80s classic, a young kid from the big city moves to a small town with repressive ordinances against dancing and rock music.
The Good: The original is awesome. The music is amazing. A modern look at the 1984 classic sounds like a lot of fun.
The Bad: It's an updated remake. That means it's possible that we aren't going to have a rockin' '80s soundtrack. God help me if instead of Kenny Logins we get Katy Perry.
Final Thoughts: I'm not too excited about this. And there will be rage if "Footloose" by Kenny Logins isn't included in this movie. But I'm guessing they aren't that stupid. So, I'm waiting for a radical rockin' good time.
2) The Thing: Not so much of a remake but a prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter remake. A paleontologist joins a Norwegan research team in Antartica when they discover an alien spacecraft and dead aliens.
The Good: It isn't a remake. This will be an interesting spin on the opening scene from the 1982 "The Thing"
The Bad: If you already saw the 1982 movie, you know how this movie ends. Still, the idea is interesting and seeing some updated CG aliens might be good.
Final Thoughts: The effects in the 1982 "The Thing" were disgusting. Every time the alien changed, it looked like it ripped itself apart. With new computer graphics, I'm expecting a lot more disturbing images. If they don't overdo it on the effects and stay true to the story about alien infiltration and paranoia, this will be a welcome addition to a great movie.
3) The Big Year: A buddy road-trip style movie with Steve Martin, Jack Black, and Owen Wilson as three guys forget their resonsibilities and follow their dreams for one year.
The Good: Three great comedians working together.
The Bad: I've seen this movie before. It was called "The Bucket List" and it was a better story than three guys ditching their lives out of boredom.
Final Thoughts: "The Bucket List" wasn't even that great a movie with Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicolson. Stop me if you've heard this before... Owen Wilson plays a womanizing pretty boy... Jack Black plays a low-life screw up, and Steve Martin plays a retired business exec. Yeah. Just about every movie these guys have ever starred in. I'm sorry, but the "Carpe Diem!" message loses something when it's three guys just going off on an adventure. In the Bucket List it was two old guys at the end of their lives with a few months to live. It's a watered down version of a movie that wasn't that good in the first place.
4) Fireflies in the Garden: A movie about a highly successful family of four and how they feel about each other.
The Good: The cast is excellent.
The Bad: It's another pretentious movie meant to be melodramatic. You know, those movies actors do when they want to win an Oscar.
Final Thoughts: I'm sure the acting will be great and each one will be trying their hardest to make you feel something; but the movie is going to suck. Here's the movie: the perfect family has problems. There. Done. Next movie.
5) The Skin I Live In: Dr. Robert Ledgard, a plastic sergeon spends years developing a new kind of skin after his wife was burned in a car accident. But to complete it, he needs human subjects.
The Good: *cricket sounds*
The Bad: Here's a better title, "The Bride of Frankenstein Gets a Facelift." Super skin? Are you serious?
Final Thoughts: The Trailer looks stupid. It is aboslutely no help in uncoding what this movie is even about. A plastic surgeon puts super skin grafts on a mentally unstable woman. I think. Skip it.
6) Trespass: A family with a neglectful father/husband, a career-driven wife/mother and a rebellious teenager must band together to survive a home invasion.
The Good: Nicholas Cage is in it. That's all I need to know.
The Bad: It's with director Joel Schumacher. Yes, the guy who did Batman and Robin.
Final Thoughts: This movie is going to be a cheese fest. Probably to the point where it stops being fun and is just annoying. But, it has Nick Cage! So, I have to see it. I don't expect you to.
See you at the movies!
Friday, October 7, 2011
From the Vault: Gremlins
A nice little tounge-in-cheek monster movie taking place around Christmas. Made back in 1984, Gremlins is the campy, cult hit that made Phoebe Cates famous.
When encountering a Gremlin, it's important to follow the rules... each one more silly than the rest. 1) Don't expose them to sunlight because it kills them. 2) Don't get them wet. and most importantly 3) Don't feed them after midnight. I told you they got silly as we go along. So silly that they are made into a joke in Gremlins 2: The New Batch.
Gizmo the Mogwai is a cute little fuzzy singing thing (voiced by Howie Mandel) And one fateful day a down on his luck inventor named Rand Peltzer (Hoyt Axton) buys him as a pet for his son, Billy. (Zach Galligan) In the beginning everything is ok. But then the rules were broken.
First, Gizmo gets wet and that caused Gizmo to shoot Mogwai eggs out of his back. When the eggs hatched, we now have several Mogwai but these ones are not so well behaved. And when they eat after midnight, they turn into lizard like beasts of destruction.
Gremlins is hilarious. Once there is an entire army of Gremlins on the loose, they don't systematically try to destroy the town, they have maybe the most epic Christmas party ever! They're drinking, gambling, watching movies, singing... they have a BALL! The only person who dies is the one person in the entire town you WANT to die. Mrs. Deagle (Patty Halliday) is Ebenezer Scrooge in a dress. Except where Scrooge had redeeming qualities, she actively tries to murder small animals. I'm not kidding. Her death scene is worth the price of the DVD alone.
Give this one a watch for great 80s fun.
When encountering a Gremlin, it's important to follow the rules... each one more silly than the rest. 1) Don't expose them to sunlight because it kills them. 2) Don't get them wet. and most importantly 3) Don't feed them after midnight. I told you they got silly as we go along. So silly that they are made into a joke in Gremlins 2: The New Batch.
Gizmo the Mogwai is a cute little fuzzy singing thing (voiced by Howie Mandel) And one fateful day a down on his luck inventor named Rand Peltzer (Hoyt Axton) buys him as a pet for his son, Billy. (Zach Galligan) In the beginning everything is ok. But then the rules were broken.
First, Gizmo gets wet and that caused Gizmo to shoot Mogwai eggs out of his back. When the eggs hatched, we now have several Mogwai but these ones are not so well behaved. And when they eat after midnight, they turn into lizard like beasts of destruction.
Gremlins is hilarious. Once there is an entire army of Gremlins on the loose, they don't systematically try to destroy the town, they have maybe the most epic Christmas party ever! They're drinking, gambling, watching movies, singing... they have a BALL! The only person who dies is the one person in the entire town you WANT to die. Mrs. Deagle (Patty Halliday) is Ebenezer Scrooge in a dress. Except where Scrooge had redeeming qualities, she actively tries to murder small animals. I'm not kidding. Her death scene is worth the price of the DVD alone.
Give this one a watch for great 80s fun.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Debt Movie Review
Here in Korea, The Debt just came out in theaters. I didn't know it at the time. Mostly because it came out with an alternate title. Here it's called, "Unfinished." If you've seen the movie, I'll let you decide which is a better title. For me, there wasn't any debt in the movie. The word "debt" denotes some kind of obligation. I never got that feeling from this movie.
Basically, the story is about three Mossad agents and their failure on an important mission back in the 1960's. They all feel incredibly guilty about it and they lie to cover up their failure.
I'm struggling to think of what to say. Overall, the movie felt disappointing. It wasn't bad, but wasn't all that good either. I'm really at a loss as to why.
So, there will be spoilers I'm afraid. And the next part of this review is more going to be a journey into my thought process as I try to understand my own feelings about it as well.
Why didn't I like this movie? There were some great, tense moments in this movie. When young Rachel had to pose as a woman looking to get pregnant because the Nazi Dr. Vogel was now a gynocologist in East Berlin, having this butcher of a man groping around down there, her holding back her disgust, not wanting to accidentily say or do the wrong thing. It's a tense moment.
The acting was really good. They do this out of sequence story telling. Most of the movie is about the mission. Helen Mirren is Rachel in 1997 where we start the movie. We then have Jessica Chastin playing the young Rachel in 1965. Some people have complained that switching times like this made it hard to follow, I didn't have much problem. I guess the biggest problem was that the flashback scenes took up so much of the movie. An hour an a half into a 2 hour movie and then we get the big realization that the doctor got away. Then the last few minutes of the movie are spent worrying that some old man in a hospital might be Vogel and he wants to talk.
Yeah. That's why I didn't like the movie. The first hour and a half is about the mission. We catch this barbarian of a doctor who did horrible things to people during the war. And we see the failure of the Mossad agents. He gets away and goes into hiding. The three are left with a choice. Tell the truth that they failed, or lie about it. They chose to lie about it. And for the next 30 years, nothing happens. Vogel never turns up. Nobody is really looking for him anymore. Any victim's families think that he's dead and they are happy. The mission leader, Stefan marries Rachel and has a successful career. Rachel gives birth to a beautiful daughter. She becomes a writer and writes her first book about her Mom and Dad and the mission. David goes and travels the world. Everyone is pretty much happy. Vogel just disappears from everyone's memory. Except the Mossad agents that remember and feel like schmucks for lieing for 30 years.
But in the last part of the movie where they get word that Vogel might've resurfaced, it wasn't about fixing a mistake, it was about saving their own backsides. It was about making sure Vogel is dead and preserving the cover-up. And for as much as I love Helen Mirren, her in a fist fight with a 90 year old man isn't all that entertaining.
The movie also had too many swerves to it. And they weren't even unexpected swerves. In the beginning we get a flashback while Rachel is reading her daughter's book. She reads the part where she kills Vogel. We are meant to think that's how it happened. Unless we've seen the trailers or read any synopsis of the movie. We know that's a lie so it's not much drama when it's revealed that Vogel got away. We also know they escaped East Berlin alive and okay because that was the first scene of the movie. This is why flashbacks are so tricky to use. We see the characters alive so we know that they make it through. That detracts from the drama. We aren't thinking, "will he get out of this?" or "How is he going to get out of this?" We instead are thinking, "when will he get out of this?" The audience is outpacing the movie. Not a good thing. That's when the audience starts looking at their watches and are not interested in what is happening.
What would I have done differently? Tough question. We really have a problem of having too much plot. Would telling the story in proper sequence help? Not really. Again, the whole point of the movie was that the Mossad agents failed and lied about it. Then the "debt" is that they have to live with the guilt, never tell the truth, and cover it all up when the lie is threatened. Except the lie was never really threatened. The guy they believe to be Vogel turns out to be a sick, old, dilusional man but got his information from the real Vogel who was a patient in the same hospital. But let's back up a minute. Let's say for a moment that the newspaper article that was going to be written about Vogel got published. So what? The Israeli government would just deny it saying it came from some anti-semites looking to embarrass their country. Some would believe that. Others wouldn't. But nothing would really happen. Why so much urgency to kill Vogel after 30 years? He wasn't bothering anyone. He happily disappeared and nobody was ever the wiser. He wasn't interested in confessing. He couldn't care less!
Then in the end Rachel confesses about the cover-up. Why? Well, we get a plausible why. David was cracking under all the stress of keeping the secret. Boy, when I say that, he's a terrible spy. Anyway, David kills himself because of his guilty conscious. That makes Rachel feel guilty. She says she wants to do something to make her daughter feel proud of her. Like what? Sabotaging her writing career? Making her first book a hollow lie? Making all the stories and feelings she grew up with thinking her mother was a hero disappear? This was good for her? I don't normally side with the horrible corrupt government official, but in this case Stefan is right. The truth doesn't benefit anyone. You failed your mission and the guilt you feel is your punishment for failing.
Overall, it's put together well. The acting is great and the direction is top notch. It's just the story needed a lot more work. They set the scene way too far into the future. Instead, it should've been about protecting Rachel's daughter. Set it about 5 years into the future and have Vogel resurface and threatening to do to the child what he did during the war. That would've added a lot more to it. But then we wouldn't get Hellen Mirren.
It's enjoyable. But not all that memorable. Shame.
Basically, the story is about three Mossad agents and their failure on an important mission back in the 1960's. They all feel incredibly guilty about it and they lie to cover up their failure.
I'm struggling to think of what to say. Overall, the movie felt disappointing. It wasn't bad, but wasn't all that good either. I'm really at a loss as to why.
So, there will be spoilers I'm afraid. And the next part of this review is more going to be a journey into my thought process as I try to understand my own feelings about it as well.
Why didn't I like this movie? There were some great, tense moments in this movie. When young Rachel had to pose as a woman looking to get pregnant because the Nazi Dr. Vogel was now a gynocologist in East Berlin, having this butcher of a man groping around down there, her holding back her disgust, not wanting to accidentily say or do the wrong thing. It's a tense moment.
The acting was really good. They do this out of sequence story telling. Most of the movie is about the mission. Helen Mirren is Rachel in 1997 where we start the movie. We then have Jessica Chastin playing the young Rachel in 1965. Some people have complained that switching times like this made it hard to follow, I didn't have much problem. I guess the biggest problem was that the flashback scenes took up so much of the movie. An hour an a half into a 2 hour movie and then we get the big realization that the doctor got away. Then the last few minutes of the movie are spent worrying that some old man in a hospital might be Vogel and he wants to talk.
Yeah. That's why I didn't like the movie. The first hour and a half is about the mission. We catch this barbarian of a doctor who did horrible things to people during the war. And we see the failure of the Mossad agents. He gets away and goes into hiding. The three are left with a choice. Tell the truth that they failed, or lie about it. They chose to lie about it. And for the next 30 years, nothing happens. Vogel never turns up. Nobody is really looking for him anymore. Any victim's families think that he's dead and they are happy. The mission leader, Stefan marries Rachel and has a successful career. Rachel gives birth to a beautiful daughter. She becomes a writer and writes her first book about her Mom and Dad and the mission. David goes and travels the world. Everyone is pretty much happy. Vogel just disappears from everyone's memory. Except the Mossad agents that remember and feel like schmucks for lieing for 30 years.
But in the last part of the movie where they get word that Vogel might've resurfaced, it wasn't about fixing a mistake, it was about saving their own backsides. It was about making sure Vogel is dead and preserving the cover-up. And for as much as I love Helen Mirren, her in a fist fight with a 90 year old man isn't all that entertaining.
The movie also had too many swerves to it. And they weren't even unexpected swerves. In the beginning we get a flashback while Rachel is reading her daughter's book. She reads the part where she kills Vogel. We are meant to think that's how it happened. Unless we've seen the trailers or read any synopsis of the movie. We know that's a lie so it's not much drama when it's revealed that Vogel got away. We also know they escaped East Berlin alive and okay because that was the first scene of the movie. This is why flashbacks are so tricky to use. We see the characters alive so we know that they make it through. That detracts from the drama. We aren't thinking, "will he get out of this?" or "How is he going to get out of this?" We instead are thinking, "when will he get out of this?" The audience is outpacing the movie. Not a good thing. That's when the audience starts looking at their watches and are not interested in what is happening.
What would I have done differently? Tough question. We really have a problem of having too much plot. Would telling the story in proper sequence help? Not really. Again, the whole point of the movie was that the Mossad agents failed and lied about it. Then the "debt" is that they have to live with the guilt, never tell the truth, and cover it all up when the lie is threatened. Except the lie was never really threatened. The guy they believe to be Vogel turns out to be a sick, old, dilusional man but got his information from the real Vogel who was a patient in the same hospital. But let's back up a minute. Let's say for a moment that the newspaper article that was going to be written about Vogel got published. So what? The Israeli government would just deny it saying it came from some anti-semites looking to embarrass their country. Some would believe that. Others wouldn't. But nothing would really happen. Why so much urgency to kill Vogel after 30 years? He wasn't bothering anyone. He happily disappeared and nobody was ever the wiser. He wasn't interested in confessing. He couldn't care less!
Then in the end Rachel confesses about the cover-up. Why? Well, we get a plausible why. David was cracking under all the stress of keeping the secret. Boy, when I say that, he's a terrible spy. Anyway, David kills himself because of his guilty conscious. That makes Rachel feel guilty. She says she wants to do something to make her daughter feel proud of her. Like what? Sabotaging her writing career? Making her first book a hollow lie? Making all the stories and feelings she grew up with thinking her mother was a hero disappear? This was good for her? I don't normally side with the horrible corrupt government official, but in this case Stefan is right. The truth doesn't benefit anyone. You failed your mission and the guilt you feel is your punishment for failing.
Overall, it's put together well. The acting is great and the direction is top notch. It's just the story needed a lot more work. They set the scene way too far into the future. Instead, it should've been about protecting Rachel's daughter. Set it about 5 years into the future and have Vogel resurface and threatening to do to the child what he did during the war. That would've added a lot more to it. But then we wouldn't get Hellen Mirren.
It's enjoyable. But not all that memorable. Shame.
Monday, October 3, 2011
From the Vault: Blazing Saddles
Made back in 1974, Blazing Saddles is still one of the greatest comedies ever made. Written by comedy legends Mel Brooks, Richard Pryor, and Andrew Bergman, Blazing Saddles is the story of a black railroad worker who through a twist of fate becomes the sheriff of a small frontier town.
Blazing Saddles was the spark in Mel Brooks' career. This was his first major movie success since doing The Producers in 1968. After Blazing Saddles, he would go on to create other landmark comedies such as Young Frankenstein, Spaceballs, and High Anxiety.
While a big success, Blazing Saddles also had it's fair share of controversy, namely over the use of the "N word", his casting choices, and animal cruelty.
The charges of animal cruelty came from a scene where Mongo, a big colossus of a cowboy, punches a horse and knocks the horse out. The horse in question was a trained horse so the horse was never harmed in the filming of the movie.
Originally, Mel Brooks wanted to cast Richard Pryor as the role of Bart the black sheriff. Warner Bros. however had concerns over Pryor's drug use and mental instability, so Clevon Little was instead cast. Also, the role of The Waco Kid was given to Gig Young but was replaced by Mel Brooks' good friend Gene Wilder shortly after the beginning of filming. Gig Young by 1977 was a notorious alcoholic and lost many different acting jobs because he would show up to the set falling down drunk. Gig Young died in 1978 ironically after starring in Game of Death, the last movie Bruce Lee made before he died in 1973.
Throughout the movie, the "N word" was used frequently. Mel Brooks defends this by saying that this was how people talked back then. Many times they didn't use it in a negative way, but just because they didn't know any better. This led to what might be one of the most memorable scenes in the movie. Bart is out mingling with the white people in Rock Ridge. He comes across a sweet old lady. He says his hellos in as pleasant a manner as he could and her response was, "up yours N*****." A visibly dejected and demoralized Bart gets a pep talk from The Waco Kid where he spells it out for everyone: these people are morons.
What is often forgotten was that the criticism for the use of the "N word" didn't come from the black community, but from offended white people. In the commentary provided on the Blazing Saddles DVD, he talks about how black people would be the first to come to his defense.
In what might've been the most surreal criticisms of the movie came from a lawsuit filed by Hedy Lamarr for the use of her name in the movie. The villan's name was Hedley Lamarr (played by Harvey Korman) In the movie it was lampooned several times when characters would call Hedley, Hedy and he would correct them. In one scene the Governor (played by Mel Brooks) would say, "What are you worried for, it's the 1860s. You'll be able to sue her!"
Also on the commentary of Blazing Saddles, he told a story of how he managed to convince the legendary cowboy John Wayne to read the script and possibly do a cameo. Wayne declined because he thought the script was "too dirty" and it would've hurt his career, but expressed how much he loved the script and wished he could be in it.
Blazing Saddles was ultimately a story of overcoming prejudice and finding your place in the world. It was about upsetting the norm by not only having a black hero in a cowboy movie, but also with repeatedly breaking the fourth wall during the climax of the movie.
The success of Blazing Saddles helped Mel Brooks to keep a good cast of actors together for several more movies. Gene Wilder starred in the Producers earlier and then was in Young Frankenstein, Harvey Korman would have roles in High Anxiety, History of the World part 1, and Dracula: Dead and Loving It. Madeline Khan starred in Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety, and History of the World part 1. Dom DeLouise was also in The Twelve Chairs, Silent Movie, History of the World part 1, Spaceballs, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
If you haven't seen this movie yet, go find it. Immediately.
Blazing Saddles was the spark in Mel Brooks' career. This was his first major movie success since doing The Producers in 1968. After Blazing Saddles, he would go on to create other landmark comedies such as Young Frankenstein, Spaceballs, and High Anxiety.
While a big success, Blazing Saddles also had it's fair share of controversy, namely over the use of the "N word", his casting choices, and animal cruelty.
The charges of animal cruelty came from a scene where Mongo, a big colossus of a cowboy, punches a horse and knocks the horse out. The horse in question was a trained horse so the horse was never harmed in the filming of the movie.
Originally, Mel Brooks wanted to cast Richard Pryor as the role of Bart the black sheriff. Warner Bros. however had concerns over Pryor's drug use and mental instability, so Clevon Little was instead cast. Also, the role of The Waco Kid was given to Gig Young but was replaced by Mel Brooks' good friend Gene Wilder shortly after the beginning of filming. Gig Young by 1977 was a notorious alcoholic and lost many different acting jobs because he would show up to the set falling down drunk. Gig Young died in 1978 ironically after starring in Game of Death, the last movie Bruce Lee made before he died in 1973.
Throughout the movie, the "N word" was used frequently. Mel Brooks defends this by saying that this was how people talked back then. Many times they didn't use it in a negative way, but just because they didn't know any better. This led to what might be one of the most memorable scenes in the movie. Bart is out mingling with the white people in Rock Ridge. He comes across a sweet old lady. He says his hellos in as pleasant a manner as he could and her response was, "up yours N*****." A visibly dejected and demoralized Bart gets a pep talk from The Waco Kid where he spells it out for everyone: these people are morons.
What is often forgotten was that the criticism for the use of the "N word" didn't come from the black community, but from offended white people. In the commentary provided on the Blazing Saddles DVD, he talks about how black people would be the first to come to his defense.
In what might've been the most surreal criticisms of the movie came from a lawsuit filed by Hedy Lamarr for the use of her name in the movie. The villan's name was Hedley Lamarr (played by Harvey Korman) In the movie it was lampooned several times when characters would call Hedley, Hedy and he would correct them. In one scene the Governor (played by Mel Brooks) would say, "What are you worried for, it's the 1860s. You'll be able to sue her!"
Also on the commentary of Blazing Saddles, he told a story of how he managed to convince the legendary cowboy John Wayne to read the script and possibly do a cameo. Wayne declined because he thought the script was "too dirty" and it would've hurt his career, but expressed how much he loved the script and wished he could be in it.
Blazing Saddles was ultimately a story of overcoming prejudice and finding your place in the world. It was about upsetting the norm by not only having a black hero in a cowboy movie, but also with repeatedly breaking the fourth wall during the climax of the movie.
The success of Blazing Saddles helped Mel Brooks to keep a good cast of actors together for several more movies. Gene Wilder starred in the Producers earlier and then was in Young Frankenstein, Harvey Korman would have roles in High Anxiety, History of the World part 1, and Dracula: Dead and Loving It. Madeline Khan starred in Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety, and History of the World part 1. Dom DeLouise was also in The Twelve Chairs, Silent Movie, History of the World part 1, Spaceballs, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
If you haven't seen this movie yet, go find it. Immediately.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Coming Soon: 10/7/11
Here's what is coming out this week.
1) Real Steel: A washed up fighter gets a chance at a comeback in the robot fighting arena.
The Good: Boxing is always fun. Throw in robots, and it's good campy fun.
The Bad: This is Rocky meets Rockem' Sockem' Robots.
Final Thoughts: This one is not meant to be taken seriously. It advertised on WWE for crying out loud! If you like giant robots fighting each other (and who doesn't) than this should be ok. Not great, but ok.
2) The Ides of March: A political contest could go awry when a scandal surfaces.
The Good: George Cloony is almost always awesome. Teaming with Paul Giamatti and Marisa Tomei should be great.
The Bad: It's another political drama. If politics doesn't interest you, this is going to be horrible.
Final Thoughts: The trailer doesn't make it clear what the scandal is, but does it really matter? Movies like this tend to be the same. The squeaky clean politician turns out is dirty. Yawn. Moving on.
3) Intruders: Different people telling their ghost stories.
The Good: It's Halloween season and who doesn't love a good ghost story this time of year?
The Bad: It's about a generic as it gets.
Final Thoughts: Clive Owen is a great actor, but don't expect anything special here. Still might be good for a few scares on Halloween.
4) Dirty Girl: A comedy about breaking the norm and self-discovery when a troublemaking teenage girl goes on a road trip with her shy friend to find her real father.
The Good: Great cast and a surprisingly good looking story. The trailer makes the film look like it actually is in 1987 and looks like a very campy comedy.
The Bad: Might emphasize the drama more than the comedy.
Final Thoughts: I'm actually looking forward to this one. Comedies are of course notoriously hit-or-miss but this one got me interested. We'll see.
5) The Way: A father goes to get the remains of his dead son. His son was on a backpacking trip when he was killed in a storm. The father decides to finish the trip in memory of his son.
The Good: Sounds like a real heartwarming story. Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez making us think about the meaning of life.
The Bad: nothing. It looks like a strong candidate for the academy awards.
Final Thoughts: It's dramatic, funny, and makes you think. We all should try to be a little more worldly and this movie shows us why.
see you at the movies.
1) Real Steel: A washed up fighter gets a chance at a comeback in the robot fighting arena.
The Good: Boxing is always fun. Throw in robots, and it's good campy fun.
The Bad: This is Rocky meets Rockem' Sockem' Robots.
Final Thoughts: This one is not meant to be taken seriously. It advertised on WWE for crying out loud! If you like giant robots fighting each other (and who doesn't) than this should be ok. Not great, but ok.
2) The Ides of March: A political contest could go awry when a scandal surfaces.
The Good: George Cloony is almost always awesome. Teaming with Paul Giamatti and Marisa Tomei should be great.
The Bad: It's another political drama. If politics doesn't interest you, this is going to be horrible.
Final Thoughts: The trailer doesn't make it clear what the scandal is, but does it really matter? Movies like this tend to be the same. The squeaky clean politician turns out is dirty. Yawn. Moving on.
3) Intruders: Different people telling their ghost stories.
The Good: It's Halloween season and who doesn't love a good ghost story this time of year?
The Bad: It's about a generic as it gets.
Final Thoughts: Clive Owen is a great actor, but don't expect anything special here. Still might be good for a few scares on Halloween.
4) Dirty Girl: A comedy about breaking the norm and self-discovery when a troublemaking teenage girl goes on a road trip with her shy friend to find her real father.
The Good: Great cast and a surprisingly good looking story. The trailer makes the film look like it actually is in 1987 and looks like a very campy comedy.
The Bad: Might emphasize the drama more than the comedy.
Final Thoughts: I'm actually looking forward to this one. Comedies are of course notoriously hit-or-miss but this one got me interested. We'll see.
5) The Way: A father goes to get the remains of his dead son. His son was on a backpacking trip when he was killed in a storm. The father decides to finish the trip in memory of his son.
The Good: Sounds like a real heartwarming story. Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez making us think about the meaning of life.
The Bad: nothing. It looks like a strong candidate for the academy awards.
Final Thoughts: It's dramatic, funny, and makes you think. We all should try to be a little more worldly and this movie shows us why.
see you at the movies.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
From the Vault: Robot Monster
A movie from the Golden Age of monster movies. Made in 1953, Robot Monster is widely considered one of the worst monster movies ever made. It's full of terrible acting, dreadful dialogue, a convoluted story, and one the single worst "don't do that" ending in all of storytelling. And to top it all off, the monster looks rediculous!
The story is that this robot like being named Ro-man came down from space. Ro-man kills everyone on the planet except for a handful of survivors. The rest of the movie Ro-man is trying to kill them while also questioning the morality of it all. While a very goofy movie, it does try to make a good point about blind loyalty and the critical failures of communism.
To describe this as a cheesy B movie is the understatement of the century. The killer death ray is a flashing light, the communications machine makes bubbles, it was shot in 3D, and of course the monster is a gorilla costume with a diving helmet. Yes. I said a gorilla costume with a diving helmet.
The movie was shot solely on location in the Bronson Caves, one of the most famous places in Griffith Park in Los Angeles. The Bronson Caves were used in over 80 movies and several different TV series. Such movies as Zorro Rides Again, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Batman: The Movie, Star Trek VI, Army of Darkness, and The Scorpion King were all movies made in the Bronson Caves.
Even upon release, the movie was considered a complete embarrassment. Rumor has it, the director, Phil Tucker, tried to kill himself after the horrible reviews. (Others more knowledgeable say it was due to not being paid for making the movie)
The movie has found a weird measure of success. In 1988, Robot Monster was featured on the comedy cult classic "Mystery Science Theater: 3000" providing new interest in the movie. Today, it's still one of the worst movies ever made, but among B-movie enthusiasts it's a cult hit still viewed today.
My advice: watch it if only to see how bad it is and just what can be done with almost no money and a little enginuity.
The story is that this robot like being named Ro-man came down from space. Ro-man kills everyone on the planet except for a handful of survivors. The rest of the movie Ro-man is trying to kill them while also questioning the morality of it all. While a very goofy movie, it does try to make a good point about blind loyalty and the critical failures of communism.
To describe this as a cheesy B movie is the understatement of the century. The killer death ray is a flashing light, the communications machine makes bubbles, it was shot in 3D, and of course the monster is a gorilla costume with a diving helmet. Yes. I said a gorilla costume with a diving helmet.
The movie was shot solely on location in the Bronson Caves, one of the most famous places in Griffith Park in Los Angeles. The Bronson Caves were used in over 80 movies and several different TV series. Such movies as Zorro Rides Again, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Batman: The Movie, Star Trek VI, Army of Darkness, and The Scorpion King were all movies made in the Bronson Caves.
Even upon release, the movie was considered a complete embarrassment. Rumor has it, the director, Phil Tucker, tried to kill himself after the horrible reviews. (Others more knowledgeable say it was due to not being paid for making the movie)
The movie has found a weird measure of success. In 1988, Robot Monster was featured on the comedy cult classic "Mystery Science Theater: 3000" providing new interest in the movie. Today, it's still one of the worst movies ever made, but among B-movie enthusiasts it's a cult hit still viewed today.
My advice: watch it if only to see how bad it is and just what can be done with almost no money and a little enginuity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)