An open letter the moviegoing public of America

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter comes out next week. And you need to go see it. If you’re anything like the (admittedly small) cross section of moviegoers that I’ve witnessed react to the trailer, you likely think this is the dumbest thing to come out of Hollywood since, well… ever apparently. I’ve heard people laugh at the trailer, remark on its supposed idiocy, scoff & deride it. All the while not being able to figure out why they seemed to hate it so.

We are a fickle bunch, to be sure. We bitch about overdone franchises with pointless sequels (Transformers, Pirates), unnecessary reboots (Spider-Man), unwanted remakes (Footloose), lack of original ideas (Battleship) adaptations that were being clamored for by nobody (Dukes of Hazzard), adaptations that didn’t need to be movies at all (Simpsons, X-Files)… and yet for the most part we throw our hard-earned dollars at this dreck at the very same time that we mock it.

From a pop culture perspective we love vampire movies. Always have. We love vampires when they’re the framework for nothing more than a teenage love story (Twilight). We’ve had vampires in pretty much every genre. From the classic interpretations (Bram Stoker’s Dracula), to comedy (Love at First Bite, Once Bitten), period piece (Interview with a Vampire), comic book sensibility (Blade, Van Helsing), teen/coming of age (Lost Boys, Buffy), sci-fi (Lifeforce), to every angle of modern-day horror (Fright Night, Near Dark, Dracula 2000, From Dusk til Dawn)… and even the worst of those have never been met with the sheer derision that seems to be brewing for Abraham Lincoln.

You guys love True Blood, for fuck’s sake! And that’s the same fucking thing- vampires in the south! Why are you so resistant to the idea of an actual historical figure interacting with them? Genre mashup is an amazing storytelling device. This is satirical revisionist history at its finest. Directed by Bekmambetov and produced by Burton!!! At the very least it'll be visually amazing. Unfortunately the population at large seems vehemently opposed to such genre mashup. Movies about vampires are ok, and movies about history. But people can't seem to appreciate a little creative crossover.

If this was just another vampire period piece set against the Civil War and the rise of our nation, I have no doubt that it would be much more palatable to the audience at-large. In fact, people would probably enjoy it. But for some reason, making it about an actual historical figure just destroys any credibility it could have from a pure storytelling perspective. You people loved it- LOVED it- when the President of the United States (albeit fictional) fought aliens in Independence Day. Why not give an actual President a little creative license?

My concern is that this will be Scott Pilgrim all over again. A fresh new movie based on fringe literature that brings an innovative story to the screen like we haven’t seen before- or at least in a long time. And what did you guys do with that movie? You shunned it. Office Space bombed at the box office and went on to become a cult classic. Big Trouble in Little China- one of the boldest examples of genre mashup- found a place in American cult-cinema. All I’m asking is that you keep an open mind.

We constantly bitch that we want something new, something different. And when we get it we mock it incessantly. This movie could very well suck. It could be boring. It could be tedious and plodding. It could be a complete piece of shit. But it definitely won’t suffer from lack of originality. And for that alone it should earn your business.

Hit me up, we’ll go see it together, and I’ll even pay for your fucking ticket.

Prometheus

I’m sure I missed a lot, and noticed some things that I will forget to bring up. I’m not a theologian, I’m not a critic. I’m just a guy with a love of movies and disdain for doing my actual job while I’m at work. And I love to write.

Prometheus is a story about faith, about the meaning of life, about where we came from. A story about curiosity and our insatiable need to ask “why?” When we do get an answer, we often aren’t satisfied… we want more. The movie itself is testament to that. Because more than just a story, it’s a philosophical jumping off point. Its purpose seems to be to raise as many questions as it answers. And to anyone fluent in pop culture, this much should have been evident as soon as the screenwriting credits were displayed: Damon Lindeloff. Anyone who knows much at all about Lost (and based on its popularity, that’s probably a pretty good proportion of moviegoers) should realize immediately that our journey won’t be straightforward, nor will it tie up all of our loose ends in a pretty bow. It will challenge you, challenge your beliefs.

As with previous installations in the Alien franchise proper, there are characters with several opposing (and secret) agendas: Shaw out to prove our creators are real; Vickers out to prove the opposite, and perhaps something more; David, seemingly interested in preserving (or at least studying) a new species; Weyland, looking to cheat death.

The angle of David intentionally infecting Holloway isn’t ever directly addressed, and in retrospect might not make a ton of sense. It wouldn’t result in Weyland reaching his goal- which is David’s primary purpose. Although it does provide yet another backdrop to bring the issue of faith into clearer focus- when the two debate the origin of life, Holloway’s (perhaps unsatisfactory) answer as to why humans created artificial life was a rather blasé “Because we could.”

The presence of the Aliens themselves, and the associated Easter eggs, is only tangentially important. This movie is definitely related, but it’s more concerned with the reality of the universe as a whole; the Aliens are here more as a treat, a nod to fans of the franchise, as opposed to the centerpiece. Aliens themselves aren’t the focus, just a piece of the mythology that Ridley Scott has built.

The religious undertones are unmistakable and omnipresent, right down to the movie taking place during Christmas. From Western eyes at least, what better parallel than the birth of Christ for humanity finding its own true birthplace?

We also have a scientist, Shaw, who wears a cross. In flashbacks to her childhood she had a conversation with her own scientist father about death and what it means. The father, in explaining Heaven and its various counterparts in major religions, says he knows it’s real because he chooses to believe, a theme recurrent throughout the movie. Not only is it a theme, it’s also a request implicit in the movie itself- if you choose to believe in the answers this movie gives you, you will no doubt be satisfied.

Some of the elements are heavy-handed. For example, Vickers. Her icy, impersonal demeanor is reflected almost too on-the-nose in her choice of living quarters, especially when one of the crew members points out as much- that she lives in a self-sustained escape pod, away from the rest of the crew. It’s clear she has no belief in otherworldy life, especially beings which may have themselves created us. Yet she accepts that some people do believe- when asked by Shaw why they even bothered to invite them along if expedition rules prevent the scientists from attempting contact, Vickers replies “we wanted a true believer.”

Ultimately, in addition to being a solid movie, Prometheus can be seen as a metaphor for the audience as believers or cynics- do these answers satisfy you? Are you Vickers, or are you Shaw? It could be argued that neither one met a fitting end: Vickers, literally crushed beneath the truth she acrimoniously resisted; and Shaw, taking yet another step in her Sisyphusian journey to find answers that she undoubtedly won’t want to hear.

The Engineers themselves- our very creators- aren't too different from us. The place they've led us to is essentially an abandoned military outpost for their biological weaponry.

Beyond that, Ridley Scott has proven that he’s still got it when it comes to Sci Fi. He’s old-school, as evidenced by the fact that his future has a society that is incredibly advanced but still uses combustion engines and wheeled vehicles- details not lost on the sci fi literati. He ultimately never answers the question of why the Engineers created us (or the far more interesting why they subsequently sought to destroy us) because sometimes not knowing the answer to a question is much more liberating.

Sure, you could nitpick some of it. I’m not above that myself (http://a-blog-named-sue.blogspot.com/2007/06/fuck-you-michael-bay.html), but if a movie doesn’t take liberties with the boundaries of what they expect you to accept, then I’m willing to suspend some disbelief. Could Shaw have done everything she did after abdominal surgery? Doubtful. But I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, that maybe the surgical machine contained advanced healing agents, or at the very least incredibly strong painkillers. And it was clear early on that Weyland was still alive and that Vickers was most certainly related to him. But these elements didn’t detract from the story, they didn’t derail the message that the movie was trying to deliver.

I don’t recall the exact dialogue (because I had all this other minutiae swimming around in my head), but near the end when Shaw asks David what he’ll do once Weyland is no longer around to program him… I recall David saying something to the effect of “Well then I’ll be free.” And I may be reading into it, but he seemed to have a bit of trepidation at the thought.

To those of you who expressed displeasure/contempt/frustration with Prometheus: What were you expecting? You got everything you could’ve possibly wanted- the origin of the Aliens, the origin of our very species. The only reason I can think of for all the hate- or perhaps more accurately, disappointment- is that it wasn’t the answer you hoped for.

Basically, the movie itself can be summed up, in my esteem, by the clip of old cinema David was watching early on, when a character in another movie said “the trick is not minding that it hurts.” You have to be able to stand the hurt of not finding what you were looking for.

Movie review: Safe

The title is a witty double entendre, referring not only to the actual safe that everyone is trying to break into, but also the act of keeping a young girl safe that Statham readily, heroically accepts. However, I think they inadvertently leaned too heavily towards yet another definition of the word: bland, boring, pedestrian.

My biggest complaint with Safe is that it violated Action Movie Unwritten Rule #1: Don’t try to be more than you are. In this case, you’re a showcase for Jason Statham beating people up. That’s it. If you’re a shoot ‘em up (Clive Owen’s version of which sucked ass, btw. Crank was everything that movie wanted to be, but that’s another discussion) don’t try to pretend you’re something bigger with some convoluted, unnecessary, meandering plot.

Sure, there are exceptions- Haywire was much more an espionage film than an action movie, and it starred Gina Carano. But it worked. That usually doesn’t happen. Haywire actually had a decent story as well as some good fight scenes. Not so much with another Statham movie: Killer Elite. Marketed as an action movie, it most definitely was not and disappointed in that regard. A mistake repeated with The Mechanic. The point being keep it simple, like Tango and Cash or the aforementioned Crank. Or if you don’t really have a plot, just skip it altogether. Be like Cobra.

On top of the contrived plot, Safe also tried to be stylish and cool with clever edits and slick storyline shifts. Cutting from one scene… to a scene with a similar line or action or event that would bridge the two. Kind of like a film school dropout’s version of Tarantino. Not that such editing is necessarily bad, but when taken in conjunction with all the other things this movie did wrong it’s just another detriment.

On to the story- a washed up MMA fighter/garbage man who won’t play dirty and is unjustly punished for it. Such a fresh angle. I’ll bet if Mel Gibson wasn’t in the shitter he would’ve starred in this movie. Especially considering that the protagonist’s wife (who we never even see, let alone learn anything about. How are we supposed to empathize? Oh wait, they did give us one tantalizing clue about her- apparently she was ugly) is murdered to teach him a lesson. Have you ever noticed how many of Mel’s movies have his wife or girlfriend get killed? And usually by his enemies? Look it up. It’s actually more than a little disturbing, moreso now that we know what a volatile misogynist he is.

So back to the story. In the history of MMA, nobody’s ever been put into a coma with one punch! But I guess that’s how tough our anti-hero is. So be it, I’ll take that ride with you. But from there it’s downhill. The whole premise is just too ridiculous… as the Chinese mob strolls around Chinatown asking the girl questions, she starts reciting dollar amounts that various businesses have been earning- to the penny! Can you believe it? To the PENNY!!! I can’t think of any other way for them to track these figures than a broad-daylight kidnapping of China’s pre-teen Good Will Hunting and forcing her to work for your gang under threat of her mother’s death if she doesn’t cooperate. Except maybe a pen and paper. Or a calculator. Like a really nice one from TI that does fractions and shit.

Back to our hero. After the Russian mob murders his wife, they opt to let him live under the burden of knowing that anyone he befriends will also be killed. Even an obnoxious transient with no redeeming qualities who was probably going to steal his shoes (No! Not him!!! You bastards!). Which raises another point- if the Russian mob has the time and resources to literally follow him everywhere, all the time (including on the subway and in a homeless shelter that seemed more like a federal penitentiary. What the hell kind of shelter has armed guards, “lights out” curfew, and the aura of a prison camp?), maybe they’d be better off putting those resources into their turf war with the Triads. Just a suggestion.

But that murder of the homeless guy got me thinking: the ninja-like presence and brutality of the Russians almost seems like a superpower. Imagine, if someone annoys you- just befriend them and by morning they’re dead. That would be fucking awesome! People who talk on their cellphones while they’re at the cashier? Gone. People who double park? See ya. Bicyclists? Adios (I don’t mean ALL bicyclists. Just the obnoxious spandex-wearing ones who think the rules of traffic don’t apply to them but will not hesitate to give you shit if you encroach on their precious bike lane by an inch with your car).

So our hero is drifting along aimlessly through life, alone, when he sees the young math prodigy being chased by the same mobsters that murdered his wife. He sees here, finally, a purpose. Something to live for. Something to fight for. This is one of the few parts of the movie that I find believable. So he jumps headlong into the fray, kicks the Russians’ asses, and steps up as the girl’s protector. Oh, and by the way- of course he used to be a cop. (the moment where the director is hoping the entire audience goes “Whaaaa…?” in unison).

There’s just too much that doesn’t make sense- the Russians’ omnipresence, the Triad’s need for the girl in the first place, the cops (former associates) who beat him up for old time’s sake then just decide to stop and let him go, the cops tracking the Russians’ cellphones but not keeping tabs on their credit cards, the hotel with armed security… which, by the way, how logistically impossible would it be to pull off a hostile takeover of an ENTIRE FUCKING HOTEL??? Not to mention the fact that in modern-day New York City that would no doubt be considered an act of terrorism and even if you got away, the already precarious alliance/truce between your mob and the cops would be replaced by a hail of gunfire the likes of which would give Sam Peckinpah a hard on. By the time we find out that one of the safes holds a measly $30 million I’m already looking at my watch trying to figure out what to do with the rest of my day once I get out of here. Really? $30 million? If your mob doesn’t just have that kind of cash lying around in bags with dollar signs printed on them, you might as well pack it in and go back to Pangea or wherever the hell you’re from. Mob life isn’t for you.

The final “fuck you” to the audience was the abbreviated last showdown between Statham and his former badass/special agent/whatever the hell they were compatriot. Again, the director goes for clever here, ending the fight literally before it even begins by having the girl shoot the bad guy. That kind of “this dude is so badass you don’t even get to see it” shortcut works in some situations, like the Joker overpowering the cops in The Dark Knight, or Cromartie wiping out an entire FBI team in The Sarah Connor Chronicles (yes, I know I’m probably the only one who watched that show; if you had watched it too maybe it wouldn’t have gotten cancelled. Thanks for nothing, jerks), or even here in this very movie- when at the beginning they cut short Statham's MMA fight just before he landed his coma-inducing punch. But here it’s just another cheap gimmick that doesn’t pay off. Reminiscent also of the famous Raiders of the Lost Ark scene, where a swordsman displays his flashy skills only to have Indy shoot him. But again, there it works. Mostly because that isn't the fucking climax.

Much as I like the guy, Statham’s filmography has been very hit or miss. And this one unfortunately falls into the “miss” column.

Movie Review: Cabin in the Woods (there be spoilers ahead)

A surprisingly fresh twist on the slasher genre. Not only did Cabin successfully hit on (and in doing so, unironically parody) all the slasher movie cliches, it did so in a way that was fun, entertaining, and still scary. A feat accomplished maybe once before with Scream. It wasn't heavy-handed and formulaic, collapsing under its own pretense like I Know What You Did Last Summer, or the Final Destination franchise.

Sure, you can question the logistical impossibility of much of what transpires in this flick,(would pheromone mist work? and that quickly?), but for a movie like this you have to be willing to suspend disbelief to a greater degree than you normally might. You have to realize, this movie is asking you to go along for a ride in a universe where "the old gods" exist and are to be feared. So save all your "Shuh... right" for Shyamalan's next outing.

Besides, this movie has a bigger agenda. Not only is it a thoughtful and original commentary on the bureaucracy of our modern age- juxtaposing the red-tape cubicle life to which we've become accustomed against old-world religious cults- it also takes to task our societal bloodlust; or at least our desensitization to the horrible things that happen in our actual world, as evidenced by the nameless company's celebration (premature though it was) while the last remaining survivor of their cruelly orchestrated ordeal was getting the shit kicked out of her on a dozen monitors in the background. Not to mention the betting pool itself, which was also cleverly mirrored in the movie's finale when we realize that just as the kids in the cabin chose their own harbingers of doom, the corporate drones chose those kids to ride down in the same elevator and kill them.

Cabin is a self-conscious movie, aware of its own genre but not to the point of satire. It knows where its boundaries lie and it pushes right up to the edge of those boundaries without becoming a joke. More of a knowing nod, a peek behind the curtain. And in that vein it includes references to other classic horror movies- Evil Dead, Hellraiser, The Ring- as well as genuine campy humor- the zombie arm, the contrast between horror movie archetype and real world issues (as in the speaker phone scene, where Mordecai actually seems to break "character").

It has all the sensibility and atmosphere of an 80's slasher film without falling victim to the cheesy cliches that so routinely plague the genre. All the usual elements- stereotypical characters, poor decision making- are satisfyingly explained in real life terms. Especially fun was the guilty pleasure of seeing all the other creatures that earlier were only hinted at on the board- sexy witches? Angry molesting tree? Kevin???

Another nice touch- there is no happy ending. Sure the protagonists survive (including, in an interesting twist against type, the resourceful stoner). But it's short lived, as not only do they ultimately die in the end, they also self-righteously choose to wipe out every living person in existence. An incredibly selfish choice that caps off the film nicely.

I really like that they downplayed the whole "reality TV" angle. It was pretty much only mentioned in passing. The premise itself is almost like a modern, less dystopian version of Hunger Games: kids chosen at random to fight to the death in a controlled and manipulated environment, all for the entertainment and survival of the rest of the population. The placement of this game in our familiar modern world makes Cabin all the better. We see technology failing, endless bureaucracy, jaded corporate drones... genre mash-up that is both intelligent and hilarious.

Highly recommend. Go see it.

Movie review: Goon

Goon is a fun movie. A little disappointing, but fun. A lot of it was poorly written, especially some of the dialogue, and the acting was weak in parts- not that I expect an Oscar-worthy turn from Seann William Scott, but still... I know he's capable of better. Problems aside, it's still a good watch.

I might be biased because of my love of both hockey &its enforcers (I had to actually stop myself from cheering probably 3 or 4 times in the movie when a clutch goal was scored) but I think most people will enjoy it. The treatment of the culture of hockey, the roles different players have, is pretty well crafted. They got a lot of the quirky things right- the oddball announcer, the overenthusiastic young player, the burnt-out, jaded captain, the dynamics of the team chemistry, even the national anthem scene, though only seconds long, captures a world of minute detail that exists in the world of hockey.

Hockey fans will have a lot to identify with. And normal people will have a good story to watch unfold. Because it's a hockey movie, but it's also a movie about finding your purpose, learning what you're made of; it's a movie about what matters in life; about being part of something bigger than yourself; about camaraderie; about loyalty; about brotherhood & friendship. And about punching people in the face.

Lockout (aka Seriously?!?)

You know the old adage "Put a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, and one of them will eventually pound out Hamlet?" Well suppose you only have one monkey and 3 months. You might end up with Battlefield Earth. And if you only have a week, you going to get a new Rob Schneider movie. But before it even starts typing, that monkey is likely to rip the paper out of the typewriter, wipe his ass with it, and throw it on the ground. I present to you Lockout.

Lockout is a sci-fi action thriller co-written by Luc Besson. Unfortunately that's where the upside ends. I refuse to see this movie on the grounds that, judging by the trailer, it is simply an exercise in stitching together every woefully overused cliche in the history of Hollywood. Riot in a maximum security space station prison while the President's daughter is there on a goodwill mission, and her only hope for survival is a burned out former CIA agent who was framed for a crime he didn't commit.

There's a line of dialogue in the trailer when they are discussing who they can recruit for the suicide rescue mission, and when the protagonist is mentioned someone actually says "He's the best there is, but he's a loose cannon." They actually say that. That's real dialogue from this sad excuse for a movie. Someone (hopefully not Luc Besson) sat at a table, typed out those lines while writing shitting out this script, and thought "Yeah, I like the sound of that." And then other people read it, and didn't object. And THEN some "actors" read the lines out loud while cameras were rolling and nobody stopped them. Holy shit I can't believe that series of events actually happened in the real world. I can only guess that there was some sort of radon gas leak in the studio when all this was happening and nobody was really alert enough to yell "Cut! Guys... what the fuck are we doing?"

"Whoa... you're right. That line is really bad."

"No, not that. Well, I mean yeah, that's fucking horrible and we should all have our WGA cards revoked, but I'm talking about this whole thing. Has anybody read this through?"

"...not really. I just sort of flipped through it absentmindedly while I was huffing glue."

"Yeah, I used the first few pages to make cole slaw for dinner last night.":

"You made cole slaw out of paper??"

"Yeah."

"And you ate it?"

"Of course. Guys, I'm stupid enough to agree to make a movie like Lockout, what makes you think I'm not too stupid to eat paper?"

"Good point. Hey, where's the glue?"

The Grey

I had been looking forward to The Grey ever since I first saw the trailer. Liam Neeson has become a favorite badass of mine. Which, by the way, when did that happen? Sure, he's skirted tough-guy status before: Ra's al Ghul, Qui-Gon Jinn (one of the few enjoyable aspects of a certain trilogy that I refer to as Lucas' Shame), even as far back as Darkman- but even those characters were just moderately formidable, not outright ass kickers. Add to that roll call all the dramatic turns he's taken- Schindler, Kinsey- and it sort of evens him out. But somewhere around Taken he became a legitimate, hardcore, Bourne-esque man not to be fucked with. And not just a badass, but a resourceful one. A guy who can solve any problem, overcome any obstacle, and do it in a way that makes it seem like he's done it all before. And the crazy thing is that it was such a smooth transition. Never a moment of doubt that he could kill a man with his bare hands 7 different ways. To the point where I want him to go up against The Expendables. And win. I honestly don't have a problem with his tough guy status. In fact, I love it. It just seems so... unexpected in retrospect.

Two of the most "Oh no he didn't!" moments in the movie, to me, were at the initial wreck site. First, he talked a fatally wounded companion through his own death. That takes fucking cojones like I couldn't even imagine. Shortly after, he tells Diaz "I'm going to start beating the shit out of you in about 5 seconds." Start. Start beating the shit out of you. The inclusion of that one little word makes a world of difference. Most threats of that ilk are just a proclamation that someone will beat the shit out of someone else. But for him to say he's going to start beating the shit out of Diaz? That implies that it is going to be a long, and extremely painful beating.

Anyway, I had wanted to see The Grey on opening weekend, but was unable to go. Movie pal David Novin did go see it though, and immediately after he sent me a text letting me know. "How was it?" I texted back. A noticeably long pause preceded his stark reply: "I feel cold and empty inside."  Now I was even more excited. Not to mention this was sure to be a much needed action movie break from the CGI porn overload that's been so prevalent lately.

Speaking of CGI, that was by far the most terrifying plane crash I have ever seen in movies or TV. I was legitimately afraid sitting in my plush, reclining seat in a theater that suddenly felt about 10 degrees colder than when I first walked in. Dammit, Novin was right. Everything about the movie chilled me to the core, physically and emotionally. It was so barren, so isolating, so... empty. Survival in its most raw form. Add to the already tense and hopeless scenario the flashbacks that haunted our protagonist, and it was an effort not to give up myself. But as grim as it was, I had one humorous thought pop into my head- so many of the characters had flashbacks/hallucinations/visions of previous relationships: Liam's wife, one guy's sister, another's daughter. I thought it would be hilarious if Diaz, in his dying moments, had a vision of the admittedly repulsive hooker he had recently been with.

I had minor complaints with the reality of some aspects of the movie- like humans outrunning wolves... in snow; the presumption that they had enough extra gear to make an improvised rope, as well as the wolves being able to cross the same chasm unassisted and just as quickly; the abrupt disappearance of the wolves- formerly in hot pursuit- after Hendrick fell into the river. But again, these are minor points overall. Nothing so glaring as to undermine the story itself. My biggest gripe after seeing it is that they gave away the best scene (and one of the best scenes in cinema in recent memory) in the trailer. Still... soooooooo effing cool seeing him improvise some duel-to-the-death weapons and leap headlong into the face of his own certain demise, swinging for the fences as he did. (one other... complaint? in that last scene, there was one shot that showed the scar on his cheek being on the wrong side of his face. Clearly a mirror image of footage they used for some unknown reason. Seems like an amateur mistake, and it honestly distracted me for a moment)

The post-credits scene was both chilling and rewarding, in a way that only a badass could deliver. He fought that wolf to the death. And he took the wolf with him. Great movie, loved every moment of it. In my own little "I want to be a director" mind, I kind of wish they had used a second bonus scene showing a rescue team at the crash site. Just to really crush your spirits a little bit more. Make that cold, empty feeling linger a bit longer with the suggestion that had they not taken off into the woods they might have lived.

Hangover 2: Same shit, different year (and I mean SAME shit)

The Hangover still stands in my mind as one of the greatest comedies ever made. It is just so fucking good. The day it became available on On Demand cable I watched it 3 times, and at least once a day (if not more) every day after for the next few weeks. That movie is just full of comedic goodness, it never gets old.

I anxiously awaited the sequel with great anticipation, but also a bit of trepidation- how the Hell could you possibly follow a movie that good? A tough feat indeed that only few accomplish successfully; trying to recapture the magic of the original, balancing the tightrope of paying homage and still being fresh (Boondock Saints 2, for example).

The opening scene was nearly identical, shot for shot, right down to using a Danzig song. To me, that was a great move. There's no way you can come up with a better opening than the first one so why not use that same opening? It didn't come off as cheap or hacky, either, just the perfect tribute to a fantastic comedy. Sort of tipping it's hat to it's own roots.

But it was kind of downhill from there. There's a fine line between giving a nod to your predecessor and just lazily copying it. Let's check the scorecard:

• Stu's face fucked up? check
• Gotta find someone they lost? check
• Alan accidentally roofied them? check
• Ken Jeong's weiner? check
• Stu falls for a stripper? check
• Somehow in possession of a tiny mammal? check
• Ken Jeong leaps out of a small space and attacks them? check
• Stu sings a song about them as they retrace their steps? check
• Tyson? check
• Tyson singing? double check
• ending with "Hey guys, I found some pictures from last night" check

I realize the pictures at the end of the first one was one of the highlights, but if you're going to carbon-copy replicate the opening scene, you can't do it again at the end. Be creative for fuck's sake. Find a new way to do it. Just waaaaaaaaaaaay too copy-cat of the whole fucking movie.

Not horrible, but not worth $8. Don't get me wrong- it had some great moments, like Alan's flashback, but not enough of those moments to carry the movie. Wait for cable.

Priest. Not even a movie can make them cool

I actually had hope for this movie. It looked like it could be a really cool warrior-on-a-mission-to-save-the-people movie, set in an anachronistic, dystopian future. You expect a lot of "cheesy and ridiculous" in an action/horror movie like this, but Priest didn't have very much "cool" to balance it out. It's definitely one of those style-over-substance movies. Unfortunately, the style they ended up with- retro 80's soundstage- is about 25 years out of date.

From the looks of it, they tried to make a future reminiscent of Road Warrior meets Blade Runner meets Alien, but it ended up more like Metalstorm meets Spacehunter meets... I don't know, some shitty 80's monster movie. CHUD, maybe? If you've seen any of those movies, congratulations- you're a true child of the 80's and movie geek.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like it was a horrible movie. It was just kind of boring, which in a way is worse. A bad movie you can mock, make fun of, ridicule. A boring movie is just... kind of there. You don't care about any of the characters, or this world's humanity as a whole. There's no reason to really give a shit at all what happens to any of these people.

And that's really all you can say about this movie. It's just... there. Sort of like K-Mart, or Applebee's. Nothing to get excited about but not worth hating.

The Expendables

aka "Thank You, Stallone, For Not Making Me Feel Like I Wasted $8"

Short version- As a friend of mine so perfectly summed it up- "Dialog was clunky as hell at times and it looked like it was going to really suck half way through, but the last part of the movie made up for the lagging parts."

That is exactly how I felt about the movie. For maybe 30 minutes or so, it seemed like it was going to be the most atrocious, unwatchable pile of filth since GI Joe.

Spoilers ahead.

The beginning was OK, as we are dropped in on the Expendables in action. A very fun and frenetic scene, delivering not only on the promise that the previews made to us, but also on fleshing out the characters.

But once they returned home to their variously monotonous lives, I was afraid that the whole thing was falling apart. The dialogue was pretty fucking bad. I realize what this movie is supposed to be, an homage to action flicks starring the best of the best (or most of them anyway- would've loved to see JCVD in there). And as such, you can't in all good conscience hold it up to the same standards that you might a regular movie. But at times it seemed like they had forgotten the gag; that they were suddenly trying to take themselves seriously.

Randy Couture was kind of a waste. He is most definitely a horrible actor, reading his lines as thought he were trying to one-up (or one-down?) Michael Madsen's turn in Sin City. Just fucking awful. But even beyond that, he was pretty underused in the flick. The part about his ear, and his oversensitivity to its condition, was like an in-joke that nobody was in on. Again, I realize the irony of criticizing acting abilities in a movie of this scope. But in all honesty, the rest of the cast held their own. Say what you will about Stallone, at least he can act. True, it may not be "acting" so much as being himself, but Couture's time on camera was so wooden and forced it just felt painful to watch.

Statham especially is actually a pretty decent actor (though much of the material given to him here was clunky as hell). The guy knows how to play a toughguy-with-a-heart role. Even Lundgren had a pretty convincing performance as the washed up, unstable turncoat.

Mickey Rourke was criminally under-utilized in the movie. He's not necessarily a marquee action star, but he's tough enough to deserve some action scenes. He was barely around enough to deliver half-hearted monologues about love and honor. I suppose that could be attributed to the real-life deterioration of his mental faculties. How do I know, you may ask, that his mind is slipping? Well other than the evidence in any recent interview he's given, the man drooled during many of his meandering soliloquies. Drooled.

To me, Predator is the ultimate ensemble action movie. It is the bar that all films like this strive to reach. And though there is no shame in not reaching that peak, because few movies do, The Expendables actually surpassed Predator in one memorable category. Anyone here worth their testosterone knows that the baddest gun ever to grace the screen was Jesse Ventura's "Ol' Painless." And that gun's sheer ferocity has never come close to being matched. Until Terry Crews unleashed the fury of his as-yet-unnamed "girlfriend." Holy schnikes!!!

Minutiae:
--The inclusion of Willis and Arnold was a nice touch. Brief, but just having them appear was a cool nod to 2 of the biggest in the genre.
--They could've trimmed some of the unnecessary and unimportant stuff, like Statham's girlfriend, or the tattoo shop (is it too over-critical of me to question why Stallone's unfinished tattoo needed literally 9 seconds of inkwork for Rourke to finish? Was the only reason for the inclusion of that scene to show off Stallone's tattoos?)
--The scene where Stallone was running after the airplane... let's just say that watching him run was a definite, concrete reminder that the man is over 60 years old. I can see why they edited it the way they did, to only show brief glimpses of him running. He ran as though he actually had shit in his pants.
--Seeing Big Nog and Little Nog as 2 of the henchmen was cool. Probably only going to be appreciated by hardcore MMA fans.
--Austin was a good villain. Fortunately they didn't give him much dialogue and let him play to his strength.

Maybe the only other thing that would've made this better would have been to not only have JCVD in it, but have him play Statham's romantic rival. No way his ego would've allowed that though.

Overall, I'd give it a solid B-, 2.5 out of 4 stars, a modest thumbs-up. Don't rush to catch it in the theater, but it's worth seeing.

The Losers

I’m a sucker for a good “ragtag band of badasses working against the odds” flick. From Usual Suspects on down to Predator, that’s just good shit. And this one follows the blueprint to the T: The gruff, tough-as-nails leader with a heart of gold and chin of granite; the soft-spoken sniper; the knife specialist; the computer expert; even the wisecracking white guy who’s self-deprecating humor belies his deadly skills. Oh, and they were framed and left for dead by the clandestine shadow organization that had previously been their command.

Fast paced, frenetic editing, stylish shots and camerawork, and the best use of a Journey song in the history of cinema to date. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, and it’s got plenty of action. Clever writing, sharp dialogue, big guns and lotsa ‘splosions!

Chris Evans is pitch-perfect. His biting sarcasm and quick wit on full display, like Ryan Reynolds without the irony. And his perfection in this role is further evidence that he is the worst possible choice to play Captain America. It’s just not his style. To put him in a role where he can be tough but not sarcastic is a disservice to both him and his audience.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan is awesome, the prototypical comic book toughguy. Remember how cool Arnold used to be in his 80’s action flicks? JDM is the updated version of that, and I mean that in a good way. Couple this with his turn last year as the Comedian, as well as his role (albeit brief) as Pop Winchester, and he is on a fast track to securing his place in the badass hall of fame. Sadly, his involvement in Grey’s Anatomy is still a black mark on his record.

Jason Patric is a surprisingly phenomenal villain. Very one-dimensional, but that’s the kind of movie this is. And you don’t mind it at all. Trust me. He’s so devious, so evil, and yet so damn charming and darkly hilarious. Bra-fucking-vo.

If you like action movies that don't try to pretend they're more than they actually are- if you liked Smokin' Aces- you should love this.

Smokin Aces 2

Just watched it on DVD, and I have to say I quite enjoyed it. I know it hasn't been too well received, but I think it's getting an unfair shake..

It greatly helps if you don't hold it up for side-by-side comparison to the first. Doing that will leave you sorely disappointed. Rather, think of it as another, unrelated assassin story set in the same universe. Kind of like Kevin Smith has characters that travel between films (ie Julie Dwyer) in his Askew-niverse. Or like Tarantino has characters that similarly cross boundaries (Alabama, the Vega brothers). I'm not comparing the quality of the Carnahan-verse, as it were, to those of Smith or Tarantino. Just the concept of unique, self-contained worlds. Viewing SA2 in this light will allow you to enjoy it for what it is: a world of larger-than-life characters, card tricks, and maddeningly complex double-crosses. Not only are 3 characters from the original (yet chronologically newer) film here, there's also the near-unavoidable name drop of Buddy Israel.

This story is from the same writer, Joel Carnahan, as made clear by a couple of Easter eggs related to his first outing and the aforementioned character continuity. As a product of his fictional reality this movie is a good stand alone caper that requires no previous knowledge of the first. Though in all truthfulness I can't imagine anyone watching this movie if they have not seen the first one.

It's clearly meant to mimic the tone, and to some degree the content, of the original; we've been here before so we know what’s coming. As soon as the target of this new cabal of assassins is revealed, you'll be thinking "Okay, what's the real target here?" as you look for the inevitable plot twist that throws the story completely off the rails. That doesn't mean you won't enjoy the ride.

But before I delve into the story, a moment to appreciate the style. SA2 had pretty fucking outstanding cinematography, much like its predecessor. Here again are all the crazy camera angles, color washes, split-screens, jump-cuts through the timeline, even a nod to Natural Born Killers' acid-inspired backdrops (although that inclusion did seem almost glaringly out of place, as it never again resurfaced after grabbing your attention by the throat and demanding you notice); stylistically it was pretty close to amazing.

As for the story, it was a fun and action packed ride. Nothing too terribly groundbreaking, but if you liked the first one there's no reason you shouldn't like this one too. A few specifics (read: spoilers)-

The Tremor family is back in all their dysfunctional glory. Only one of the brothers we know from the first film is here, with a few crazy new additions. I would almost complain that this version of the Tremor family is too over the top, too comical, too batshit crazy for its own sake. Almost. Sure they were better when they were just 3 psychotic brothers that we knew almost nothing about, but this kind of glimpse into their so-called family is fun. And as the Tremor sister, Autumn Reeser is effing hot.

One of the recurring characters from part one is given a completely unexpected backstory, making for an interesting transition. And probably done solely for the knowing wink it delivers to the audience.

The addition of a finite timeline and enclosed location really raises the stakes on this mission. Cat and mouse could hardly be more tense.

As arguably the best-known cast member, Vinnie Jones is surprisingly underused. Although he is clearly in his element here.

And maybe it's the Blu-Ray, but some of the explosions looked laughably bad.

All in all a solid, entertaining 90 minutes. As the story unfolds, I felt like they almost clumsily hand you the puzzle pieces (you can unmistakably hear the lines that will be repeated as voiceovers during the final reveal), daring us to not figure out the curveball ending. And they got me. I fell for the red herrings all the way, so much so that by the time they delivered the actual ending, I was a little pissed that they tricked me so blatantly. And just as I was derisively mocking the ending as a cheap, almost carbon-copy ripoff of the final shot from Usual Suspects, they turned the tables yet again and delivered an ending so satisfying that I still can't believe it happened. Ku-fucking-dos.

On a pop culture note, if ever a movie is adapted from the Twisted Metal video game franchise, these are the guys to do it. SA2 already had enough elements to qualify as a loose adaptation- crazy assassins, crazier vehicles, a carnival, and exploding clowns.

As for the extras, a couple worthwhile tidbits. The deleted scenes section is unimpressive, save for the clip that shows they almost used the shitty, completely non-satisfying ending. Glad they didn't. The segment on weapons is interesting. But the one that I really recommend is the Behind the Scenes. I have a special affinity for how movies are made. And watching this really enhanced the entire movie experience. You can really see that they weren't trying to make a clone of the first movie. Nor were they trying to re-envision it. They were just taking the world they had created- this world of insane assassins, high octane, balls to the wall, full throttle adventure- and tell another story that would keep you entertained. And in that, I would say they succeeded.

The Book of Eli

(and yes, there are spoilers ahead)

Short version- it was a well-made propaganda film for the Bible. Kinda felt like Ralphie after getting his decoder ring- "A crummy commercial? SonofaBITCH." I liked it though.

I enjoyed this dystopian view of the future & the vagueness of the event that created it. It's always a little more interesting when some details are left to the imagination. This was definitely an alternate reality though; one that could never be the result of the actual world we live in- no ipods and no kindles! What the hell kind of future could that possibly be? While the blindingly obvious lack of ipods was likely a branding/sponsor decision (with the lack of Kindles being a plot device- their existence would render the plot moot), it was interesting to see what companies had agreed to product placement: KFC, Busch, KMart (at this year's Comicon, I expect to see plenty of KMart nametags emblazoned with the name "Eli." The new 'nerd cred' status symbol, perhaps).

Like a majority of movies I see these days, I loved the concept, loved most of the execution, but was underwhelmed by the ending. I must say I saw the twist coming a mile away. Not sure if it's because I knew that a twist was coming; I'd like to think I would've guessed it anyway. Normally I never ever see a twist coming. I think The Others may be one of the few times I've called it. But I digress! I am a fan of digression, btw. So yeah, I thought about the blind thing when he was hunkered down in the abandoned house cooking that cat, and I watched the entire movie wondering if I was right, trying to find proof or disproof of that theory. I actually remember thinking of how he jumped in fright when he opened that closet and found the body hanging there. Struck me as kinda funny and authentic that a tough guy can still be startled. I retrospectively justified it in my mind that the smell is what made him jump, but his sense of smell was so strong, that didn't seem plausible. Couple other moments when they oversold the blind thing, especially when Mila Kinis remarked (needlessly) about how bright it was in his room, after we had just seen him viewing his bible by flashlight (which in hindsight made no sense and was a red herring just for the sake of being a red herring, which is storytelling bullshit). Also oversold- when one of the thugs said "It's like he's protected somehow." For fuck's sake, leave it to the audience to connect the dots, massive and unmistakable as you made those dots, about faith and man.

Other blindness "bloopers" (and to be fair, I am not a fan of picking a movie apart just for the sake of doing so. I just think that if you base the heart and soul of your story on an improbable Shyamalanian twist, you have to play fair and not go out of your way to unfairly dupe the audience): He looked everyone in the eye. I've known a few blind people, not to mention every other blind person in the movie, and that's not typical. His hearing and smell were WAY too refined. He was better at navigating his world sightlessly than Daredevil. And Daredevil has mutagenically enhanced senses AND radar! He could smell people yards away. And he could pinpoint shoot somebody just based on sound? Balderdash! Glaringly, how would he have found the first house he camped in? Let alone the house where the two well-armed old cannibals lived (sigh... Deus ex Machina. Shelter and the biggest cache of weapons this side of a Schwarzenegger movie) that he "saw" from maybe a half mile away! I'm willing to go with the fight scenes. I've always been a fan of the "blind swordsman" angle, and I can suspend my disbelief enough for that (I can also suspend disbelief that Mila Kunis can't read but can drive a car better than I can). And the opening scene, where he skewers that cat??? I don't care how good his hearing is, he was wearing a hood and mask and that cat was quiet as shit. Not to mention the logistical impossibility of him setting up that trap anyway. How did he manage to line up that shot in the first place? And how did he so easily grab the felled cat after shooting it? Those instances flew in the face of the subtle clues given later on- the way he would always touch the door before entering a room, the way he always first consulted the sun before heading West, and as I already mentioned the way he wouldn't shoot someone until they shot first thus giving up their position. Those were great, subtle clues about his lack of sight. It was cheap, bush league even, to intentionally mislead the audience in the other direction.

More anti-blindness hullabaloo: How did he know that the shop he entered was a shop at all, where he could barter? Love me some Tom Waits, by the by. Always pleasantly surprised when I find him in a movie. Also a fan of Oldman and Kunis. And the poster of A Boy and His Dog in the room where he stayed? Very nice touch. Yay digression! When he went to pick up his non-ipod MP3 player (like such a thing exists!) he spoke to the shopkeep as though he could see the cords plugged into his device. Even at the end, when they stopped on the Golden Gate bridge, let's just say he could tell where the side of the bridge was based on the wind. Or something. There is still no way he could know there were STEPS he would have to negotiate to get to the edge. And lastly, perhaps most annoyingly, how in fucking blazes can a blind man accurately paddle a rowboat towards an island? Backwards???

Inevitably, a die-hard fan of the movie might say faith allowed him to accomplish these things. But that explanation would render his blindness immaterial and undermine the twist.

All that aside, I did find it enjoyable. Mila Kunis has never looked hotter than when she strapped the Sword of Michael to her back and headed off for some sweet, sweet revenge. And the cinematography was top notch. From the washed out look of the film to the fucking beautiful tracking shots during the gunfight- moving from inside the house to back out, then in again. Out-fucking-standing. No doubt in my mind that those shots were digitally stitched together, but it was still a thing of bullet-driven beauty.

The blindness thing was just too contrived and altogether unnecessary. Would've been a cool story even if he could see. Maybe not quite as strong a statement about faith, but I argue it would still be a solid faith-based tale. I was thinking (hoping) that the Bible he finally handed over to Gary Oldman was either boobytrapped with a bomb (but they already did that once), blank pages (because he obviously already had it memorized), or written in either a different language or illegible shorthand. Those would've all been as good as, if not better. And when the Librarian (Malcolm McDowell!!!) asked "Can I see the Bible?" it was already obvious that it was memorized even before Denzel described himself as the book "Kinda beat up, but it'll do the job." Just after that scene I was thinking it'd be cool to see the other journeys that other zealots had made as they brought the Qur'an, etc to the library. Alas, those books were already there.

Before I saw the movie I had actually contrived my own twist in the week or so since I learned this flick had one. Imagine if the movie plays as is until Gary Oldman leaves him for dead, but before Mila Kunis jacks the truck. Now imagine it cuts to the reveal: Denzel is a patient at a mental hospital, no known family, no one knows anything about his history other than he's been a patient for 30 years and he is certifiably insane. He has a book (in real life) that he is obsessed with and defends. There have been instances where other patients or staff tried to check his book out and he attacked them, severely beating them. It's all been his fantasy world; Oldman is his shrink, and he is not an evil guy at all. He finally got the book from Eli- hence Eli imagining being shot and dying. Dr Oldman opens the book and it's just blank pages. Eli dying in real life as he dies in his fantasy world. Roll credits.

Boom! (that means I'm done)

2012

What the eff is wrong with America? I can't believe that this pathetic movie was the top-grossing flick this past weekend. And not just top-grossing, but miles ahead of the competition, nearly tripling the next closest movie (which, by the way, was the equally miserable Christmas Carol; a movie that apparently features that same borderline-creepy "animation" first made infamous by Polar Express). My only consolation is that Zombieland is still in the top 20, as is Boondock Saints, deservingly getting a wider release.

I didn't see the movie, but I saw the previews. And for a movie like this that's really all you need. The effects, in all fairness, look amazing. But once you try to affix some semblance of a plot to special effects, the entire production becomes a shitfest.

How much longer must we suffer the "Disaster Porn" genre (not to be confused with "porn disaster," ie the Jimmy Kimmel sex tape, more recent Jenna Jameson fare, etc)? The Day After Tomorrow- from Roland Emmerich, the same man behind 2012- represents the height (or rather, depth) of the genre, which also includes Poseidon, Deep Impact, Armageddon, and both of those shitty volcano movies, which were so horrible they barely deserve to be recognized as 2 distinct entries. Quite a pedigree, no?

Although one could easily point to Twister as the harbinger of the Disaster Porn genre, with its at-the-time revolutionary scope of realistic effects, I blame Will Smith for Disaster Porn's rise to the forefront of our cinematic culture. Independence Day (not coincidentally, also a Roloand Emmerich vehicle) was not only the first movie to take the "disaster" element to it's hyperbolically titillating pinnacle, with the total decimation of a globally-known landmark (the White House), it also engineered what has evolved into the modern era of the summer blockbuster.

It's coming close in terms of sheer annoyance to the "spoof movie" genre, and in truth I couldn't think of a worse double feature to be torturously subjected to. The good news- it's sure to be dethroned this weekend. But do I take solace in the fact that it's being knocked off by glittery, emo, tween vampires? That's barely a consolation. Sort of like the doctor telling you "Good news, you don't have swine flu. You have SARS."

That these movies continue to be made is a travesty, the likes of which should place Emmerich on the 'most wanted' list with at least equivalent stature as Roman Polanski. That the moviegoing public continues to go see these movies in droves is another issue entirely. Then again, it IS the same country that re-elected Bush.

Ah, fuck it. At least Rob Schneider has stopped (or been stopped from?) making movies. I'm going to see some REAL cinema this weekend- the aforementioned Boondock Saints 2 or Zombieland (for the 2nd and 3rd times, respectively).

The Box

I'll keep this one short.

Overall, very interesting. Pretty cool concept, intriguing details revealed at a tantalizingly slow pace. I felt it took a bit too long to get into the story, but once it took off it was pretty effing great. But then the end was a bit of a letdown.

I would almost relate it to a season of Lost condensed into 2 hours: cool premise, lots of questions raised that really hook you in, answers to questions raise more questions, but then not enough payoff. For me, anyway. I'm all for leaving some loose ends, but you have to be fair and give me a little more resolution.

One of the odd things (to me) was that it's set in 1976. And honestly, it seems like the only reason for this is so Richard Kelly can interject clips from some of his favorite childhood TV shows. Seriously. It's that obvious.

Fun tangent- one of the pre-movie trailers they showed was for a Mel Gibson flick called Edge of Darkness. Brief synopsis: He plays a rogue cop who brutally suffers the loss of a loved one and is driven to revenge at all costs.

Read that again. Because I don't know about you, but I'm not sure Mel can pull a role like that off. Kind of out of his range, doncha think? (go to IMDb and look up how many movies center on either revenge, loss of a loved on, or both. Nevermind, I'll save you the trouble- it's a fuckin' shitload. Signs, The Patriot, Braveheart, Payback, Lethal Weapon, Ransom... fuck it. I give up.)

Last thing about the movie- it further reinforces Richard Kelly's fascination with water and his love of diagrams of people with arrows projecting from their chest.


Oh, and he may be a misogynist. Not sure yet, but the movie supports it.

All Saints Day

Troy Duffy, you magnificent bastard! In fact, I'm almost tempted to call you an Inglourious Basterd- that is, if the Troy Duffy we saw in highly entertaining Overnight was the real you- an Inglourious Basterd who took himself out in an amazing blaze of glory whilst leaving his indelible mark on (movie) history.

But we'll stick with magnificent. I have been cautiously awaiting Boondock Saints 2 ever since whispers of it were heard on the internet, following closely on the heels if the underground success of Duffy's first film, an action masterpiece. I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't like Boondock Saints. If you didn't like it, you're obviously a jerk.

So with the massive cult popularity of his first movie, it is understandable that I had a slight degree of trepidation regarding the follow-up. Would Duffy's (allegedly) massive ego get in the way of what should be a fantastic sequel? Would the 10 years (holy shit! Has it really been 10 years?!?) that have passed weaken the integrity of the story?

Fortunately, the movie was effing brilliant. It opened a bit strangely, but didn't take long to find it's footing and re-ignite the amazing dynamic of the McManus brothers.

I will admit, there were a few moments in the first couple reels that made me worry that Troy was going to stray from the path of success that should be inevitable, given the characters and material he left himself to work with. A few instances where it seemed he was trying too hard to recapture his original glory. It's a fine line between recreating brilliance, and stumbling over a too-conscious effort to try and recreate it.

And Troy definitely stumbled a couple times, with groan-inducing lines that were (in my opinion) too calculated, too "Hey, this will be clever!" And painfully obvious re-hashes of things from his first film. Luckily, after these minor bumps in the road, he seemed to stop trying too hard and just let himself be Troy, writer and director of kick-ass Irish shoot 'em ups.

Never was his brilliance more evident than in the words and actions of the brothers themselves. And although this could just as easily be a testament to the acting abilities of Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flanery, you have to think that Troy- as writer/director/ creator of the insanely cool McManus brothers- had just as much to do with that.

Fans of the original will be greeted with a few familiar faces, and be introduced to some new ones- one of whom I originally thought fell into the 'trying too hard to draw on the first movie' category, but this character quickly smoothed out and hit their stride. Another new character went the opposite direction- too much of a caricature- before settling into a believable and welcomed addition to the franchise.

There are a few surprises, especially regarding some of the old familiar faces. But not bad surprises. Not like he intentionally made "surprising" choices for what happens. Everything that transpires feels natural and fitting for the universe that the McManus brothers inhabit, which isn't to say that it's all welcomed; just entirely plausible.

I almost felt that a bit of backstory that shows up felt forced, like Duffy shoe-horned it in just for the sake of over-complicating the story. But that too developed into a fitting and enjoyable arc that really complemented the movie.

The writing- except for the (thankfully) few instances where Duffy is clearly trying to hard to be Troy Duffy, is tight and well done. Again, the brothers themsleves are pitch-perfect when compared to the first movie. Most of the nods to the original are fun and clever. And on top of all that, Duffy really shows his directing chops with a hell of a lot of visual style that he injects throughout the movie.

Bottom line- holy shit, it was surprisingly awesome! I mean, I was hoping- if not expecting, given the trepidation mentioned above- that this would be good. But it was fucking AWESOME!

Go see this movie right now. Unless you haven't seen Zombieland yet, in which case what the fuck is your problem??? I thought we already talked about that? But as soon as you see Zombieland, go see Boondock Saints 2.

Zombieland = Best movie ever

That's right, bitches! Holy. Fucking. Shit.

SOOOO good, I can't even tell you. It is hands down the best movie I have seen in freaking forever. Better than D9. Better than Basterds. Better than The Hangover. Better than (dare I say it?) Watchmen. That's right, flame on, punks.

If you want a movie that is funny, scary, action-packed, a wee bit sad, chock full of fantastic meta-humor Hollywood in-jokes (and they are really good), with amazing- and I mean AMAZING- cinematography, and even a bitchin soundtrack (from Metallica to Velvet Underground), then get off your lazy ass and go see Zombieland.

I'm serious. Drop whatever the fuck you're doing right now and go. Nothing could possibly be as good as seeing this movie. Tell your boss you're sick, or call in. Dose the kids up on NyQuil. Whatever it takes, just get your ass to the theater. I guarantee you will love it. And if you don't, then fuck you, because you must be some kind of contrarian asshole (tell DJ Request I said "Hi"). This movie is that fucking good.

Zombieland does everything right, and I mean everything. From taking tired old zombie cliches and dumping them on their head, to refreshing the genre as a whole. You are not going to see a better movie for the rest of your life.

In fact, the only even remotely negative thing I can say is that the protag is essentially a Michael Cera clone. Seriously, actor-kid who starred in this, find yourself a new niche; Cera has forever staked his claim on the style you unfortunately pull off so naturally. And he was here first. But you seem like a genuinely cool dude, so I hope you can reinvent yourself before you get typecast as a poor man's Michael Cera.

The zombie walk itself (before the show) was a bit underwhelming. They were doing free zombie makeup for attendees. And somehow, with 7 or 8 zombie makeup artists, I got stuck with the one who is a closet Twilight fan. Am I right? I mean, what part of my pic says "Zombie" to you? I look more like Ziggy Stardust auditioning for the lead in a Gary Glitter biopic. Sheesh.



But overall the movie was epic. YO GEORGE ROMERO, I KNOW YOU'RE THE KING OF ZOMBIE MOVIES, I'MA LET YOU FINISH, BUT ZOMBIELAND IS THE BEST ZOMBIE MOVIE OF ALL TIME!

Terminator: Salvation. Don't think of this as a spoiler...

...think of it as me saving you $8 and 2 hours. Short version- the only good thing about this movie is that it ended. Read on for the long(winded) review.

McG and I are done professionally, man. How is it not only possible, but permissible, to take something that is so cool, so awesome, so much a part of our pop-culture psyche, and turn it a steaming lump of shit?

For those of you who don't know me, I absolutely hated Transformers. That movie was fucking garbage, plain and simple. And yet knowing what I know now, I would have much rather sat through Transformers 2 than subject myself to the travesty that was Terminator Salvation. Yes, it was that bad. At least with Transformers you know up front that it's a Michael Bay movie. You know to go in with minimal storyline expectations (if any), with a huge lack of accountability towards reason and plausibility. Terminator was almost like a trick. It's like someone saying they're going to take you out for Italian food, and then you end up at Olive Garden. At least with Michael Bay, you know you're headed to Olive Garden from the beginning. This movie masqueraded so deceptively as not just a decent cinematic experience, but as a reinvention of the franchise. To be fair, it was "reinvention." In the same way that excrement is a "reinvention" of the food that you digest.

This would have been a great movie if it came out in the 80's, because it so desperately clings to those once-cool-now-tired 80's cliches. Do you remember Jr High, when your vision of a post-apocalyptic future was crumbling cities, burned out cars, and rag-tag survivors outwitting thier would-be robot overlords with ingenuity and urban resourcefulness? Well so does McG. His vision of the Skynet future is overloaded with burnt out rubble fields where cities once stood- that still have random fires burning among the wreckage; patrolling robots of various types because they are all single-purpose specific; plucky young rebels who get by on heart and wit. Yes, it's all there in glorious detail.

Sadly for McG, storytelling evolves. It has to in order to be interesting. McG lives in the same reality that we as a movie-going audience do. And yet he steadfastly refuses to update his pathetically dated version of a "post apocolyptic future." The original Terminator came out at a time when it was entirely plausible to think that if something like Skynet happened, there could concievably be pockets of humanity surviving in decaying rubble, fighting against machine opressors. It wasn't out of the realm of possibility. It was the 80's- we didn't even have the internet. Today we have ipod nanos, flatscreen TVs thinner than Cheney's credibility, and nanotechnology. But for some reason McG takes a technological leap backwards and gives us big, clumsy, slow-moving robots and grimy, smoke-belching factories that produce them. Do you think that's what the inside of Apple R&D looks like?

For that matter, why do Terminators look human at all? At this point they're still just metal monsters, so what's the point of a humanoid form? That can hardly be the most efficient form for hunting humans. I think something that flies would be much more suitable. Even if Skynet must use human form, why go so far as giving them fingers, mouths... hell, even eyes? Is visual data really that reliable? What about infrared? Motion detectors? Radar? Their main base is actually patrolled by Terminators who are ON FOOT and LOOK for anything suspicious. Fuck me. Anything, really, would be better than visual input. The most ridiculous example of this was a Hunter Killer airship that had tracked a submarine to its location off the West Coast... and for some reason it shined a SPOTLIGHT onto the surface of the ocean. As if it could see the sub down below. Or that a floodlight would help. Haven't we become sophisticated enough as an audience that we need things to make a little more sense now? Maybe not (see "Michael Bay" above).

Why on Earth would these Terminators- these ultimate killing machines- resort so often, so disappointingly, to fisticuffs when trying to kill a target? Sure, they carry guns, but when they lose their weapons, they seem to go into "bar brawl" mode. Not really effective. Certainly not as lethal as lasers, missiles, bombs, poison gas, electrocution. But no, they just punch and throw like a drunken Quinton Jackson.

Technology aside, McG falls victim- well, more like celebrates- so many bad, cheesy movie cliches that you'd think he stopped watching movies himself somewhere around '89. The military leaders are a perfect cross-section of humanity, as well as the brief glimpses of multi-cultural Resistance fighters (who, for some reason listen to Connor's broadcasts- which somehow Skynet is not able to pick up- on shitty old Sony tape deck/radios. Really. Even though they have all manner of helicopters, jets, secret bases, submarines, even medical teams that can peform a fucking heart transplant. Just no decent radios) and yes, even the "good ol' boy" rogue resistance fighters who see a woman and automatically think "Let's rape her!"

Skynet- if not its progeny- is really freaking smart. It has to be to pull off this Usual-Suspects-level-of-situational-engineering caper. Creating Marcus- a nearly-human robot- as a Trojan Horse of sorts, planting it in the desert, nuking it, hoping John Connor survives the nuke, counting on Marcus making his way to LA and meeting Kyle Reese, befriending Kyle Reese, being accepted by Kyle Reese, surviving the ensuing attacks (which, given the compexity of this plot, almost had to be staged), having Marcus witness Kyle get abducted to Skynet's main HQ, having him subsequently get picked up by John Connor's crew, begrudgingly win their trust, and (finally!) lead Connor into a trap. Keyser Soze's a pussy- THAT is a logistical nightmare.

But let's say all that happens. I mean, the Lions could win the Superbowl next year, right? So let's give 'em that. It's the other part of Skynet's master plan that falls apart. Letting the Resistance think they have discovered a secret code that can disable the robots, to the point that 2 robots they test the signal on actually pretend to become disabled... what's that? They weren't pretending, and the signal actually worked? But then why didn't it work on the Hunter Killer that tracked the submarine to the Pacific... oh shit. My brain just cramped.

The only part of the movie that I enjoyed were the nods to the previous installments. But McG even beat the life out of that horse too. The first couple callbacks were kinda funny, clever even. But by the time he used the music from T2, it was such a sad attempt to prove his fanboy street cred I almost felt bad for him.

In the face of all these tremendous failures, it's important to catch all the minor failures as well lest we not give McG enough credit as a top-notch hack.
1) How the hell did they ID Kyle's face? When would they have ever had his face on file somewhere?
2) Why would the terminator motorcycle have any manual controls at all? Or manual controls on the doors of the main Skynet base?
3) How did Marcus know exactly where his "chip" was?
4) Why not just kill Kyle right away and pretend he's till alive? There was no reason to keep him alive at all.
5) What really was the point of leaving Marcus with a human heart? Besides the tin-man-esque metaphor of "heart" conquering the enemy. And the contrived plot device of him donating it to Connor.

Don't even get me started on the exposition- "the signal works!" "We're in a cattle car." C'mon, McG, that's screenwriting 101.

If I ever meet you in real life, I'm asking for my $8 back.

Shyamalan-a-mania

I was recently discussing with some friends the atrocious track records and massive disappointments (not to mention wastes of potential) of Mike Myers and Nicolas Cage. The poor misguided fools (my friends, not these so-called actors) didn't see things from my perspective (ie, sanity) and got a little riled up. Let's see if I can find some common ground here, or if I'm just going to angry up the blood once again.

(click to enlarge)

I love movies, and right now there's a bunch out that I want to see. The one I'm getting the most flack for is The Happening. I can't help it, I think it looks pretty cool. The problem, of course, is that it's an M Night Shyamalan movie, meaning everyone is hyper-critical of "The Twist." Fine. I am much the same way when it comes to his movies. I loved the Sixth Sense. Not only was it a good movie, but it came out of nowhere, and nobody was expecting The Twist (except for pretentious tools who will claim they saw it coming a mile away). Plus, it was a really good story that could stand on its own merit, even without The Twist. The came Unbreakable, which I feel is underrated. Fantastic concept- a real-life superhero in the regular world. No Metropolis or Gotham, no collective of super-villains. In fact, the supervillain was The Twist in this one. Pretty cool. Some people think Unbreakable was as good as, if not better than, Sixth Sense (hence the shaded grey region in the graph below). Maybe it was the "superhero" content that drives its lack of cinematic respect.

Unfortunately, it was all down hill from there. Signs was horrible. So cliche and ham-handed in its message, and The Twist was downright absurd. What alien would ever invade a planet made of 80% material that is FATAL to it??? Careful, don't want to get up on my soap box. OK, next was The Village, equally absurd and patronizing. It was clear- very clear- at this point that M Night was a one-trick pony, and that trick was The Twist.

In an effort to either prove us wrong, or throw us off track, he made Lady in the Water. No Twist here. Unfortunately, it was even worse in his hugely egotistical decision to cast himself (an annoying trait, especially considering he gave himself larger roles as his career grew. Tarantino tried it and failed, dutifully sparing us the same mistake. Leave this gimmick to Kevin Smith) as nothing less than the savior of the world. So, Shyamalan, pretty impressed with yourself, are you?

For whatever reason, and in complete disregard for the warnings I've received from not only trusted friends but IMDb as well, I can't help but want to see this one. Will it prove the M Night Shayamalan graph correct? Or will this be an anomaly in an otherwise steady decline? I'm willing to gamble the $8 on it.

Summertime Rolls

I guess this is a little overdue, seeing as Iron Man opened last week, but summer movie season is here and I am stoked. I actually haven't even seen Iron Man yet, but I can't wait. Everyone I know says it's awesome, and to be honest I've been looking forward to it since last summer. I was a bit skeptical of Favreau as director, but he seems to have done a good job. And Robert Downey Jr was the perfect choice to star.

Looking back at '07, one can see that the bar wasn't set very high. The much hyped 3-quels (Spiderman, Pirates, and Shrek, not to mention Ocean's 13, which was made for... some reason, and the equally forgettable Rush Hour 3) disappointed, though I am amazed at the amount of money they pulled in. Doesn't speak very highly for my fellow movie-goers.

Also, it was a bad year for comic book movies- Fantastic Four? Please. I'm still not convinced that movie wasn't a joke. Ghost Rider stunk (and, along with the unnecessary National Treasurers sequel, cemented Nicolas Cage's reputation as one of Hollywood's most vexingly overrated actors. Seriously, other than Raising Arizona and Adaptation, name one good movie he did. Go ahead, give it a try. Give up? Exactly).

Die Hard jumped the shark, then shot the shark whilst in mid-air, used a chain to lash it's tail to a helicopter rotor, stuffed some C4 into it's mouth as the rotor subsequently hurled the shark into the sky, only to shoot the C4 (while jumping to safety) so that the shark explodes, and (finally) delivering- in a sly, too-cool, ironic statement tailor-made for the preview reel- the line "I guess we jumped the shark."

Transformers... no need to revisit that travesty, just read my review of it from an earlier blog. How does Michael Bay keep getting work? He's like the millionaire version of Uwe Boll. If you think you don't know who Boll is, he is the reason nobody gets excited anymore for movie adaptations of video games. Wikipedia him if you need to, it's totally worth it.

For anyone thinking "Hey, what about I Am Legend and 300?" Sure '07 had it's bright spots- those 2 along with Bourne Ultimatum, Knocked Up, and Superbad. But as awesome as those were, they are not nearly enough to counter the dreck that is Wild Hogs, the funny but ultimately irrelevant Simpsons Movie (they're still on TV for free, right?), Evan Almighty, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Norbit. My God… Norbit??? Isn't that alone enough to call 07 a failure?

So if we pare this down to summer vs summer (which mercifully let's Ghost Rider off the hook), we have the horrors of 07 vs Iron Man, The Hulk, The Dark Knight, Indiana Jones, Wanted, and Hellboy 2.

No contest. See you at the show.