Your Film Sucked

What's Going on with Jenna Jameson?

2007-03-21T15:10:00.000-04:00

She looks like Latoya Jackson with AIDS now. Gah.

300: This is a REVIEWWW

2007-03-12T14:55:00.000-04:00

There's been a lot of anticipation for the latest Frank Miller (see: Sin City) graphic novel adaptation: 300. While technically the story is based on the...well, it doesn't even matter, because this makes no attempt at being historically accurate and really isn't the point. The story starts with a "Persian" messenger warning the king of SPARRTTAAA, Leonidas, to kneel before the Persian Empire. Obviously, Leonidas, a grumpy kind of guy who tends not to wear armor during battle, isn't in the mood to bargain with the most African looking Persian I've ever seen. (Perhaps he was confused by this) and kicks the messenger down a bottomless pit. (Which is madness!)

Unfortunately for Leon, before he can send his troops to war he must consult a council of elders. They, in turn, consult an oracle. (By oracle I mean hot, naked chick) She writhes around for awhile before breathlessly whispering that war is not an option. Bummer! This leads a completely sad and completely naked Leon to pine the state of the empire before laying the pine to the Queen a few minutes later. (Heavy is the brow that wears the crown, indeed.)

Luckily for SPARRRRTAAA!, the king is quite cunning and is able to circumvent the Oracle's whims and takes his finest 300 troops (get it? get it?) on a nice stroll through the mountains and rough terrain to the sea, where coincidentally, the Persians are going to land! What a lucky break! Along the way, they run into Quasimodo, who fancies himself a Spartan. (Go back home, Frenchie!) Needless to say, he gets kicked out faster than a SPARRRTAAAAN! can chuck a spear at an enemy from 30 paces.

What follows next is a lot of battle scenes set to heavy metal music. It's also very much like a video game in the sense that it seems that there are "boss battles." Level 1 they face a mindless horde. Level 2 they face a giant. Level 3 they face an unnerving amount of estrogen, etc. During these battles we get to meet the Persian king Xerxes. I would say he's about 9 to 12 feet tall, blacker than Wesley Snipes, and about twice as effeminate as RuPaul. Just what you picture in a Persian.

There's sort of a plot in there somewhere, but it's really secondary to slow motion shots of people being beheaded, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. The violence and cinematography is highly stylized and it looks like the comic book jumping right off the page. Much like Sin City, many shots (and most dialogue) are taken straight from the book. It is definitely one of the highlights of the film; however, Robert Rodriguez handles the Sin City material better than Zach Snyder handles 300. This makes sense because Rodriguez is a better director. Oh yeah, and Faramir loses his eye.

All in all, I'd say go see it. I bet it will look awesome in Hi-Def.

Better Late than Never: A Look at Scorsese's Oscar Nominations

2007-03-05T11:06:00.001-05:00

So after 40 years of film-making, one of the greatest directors ever finally was honored as best director for The Departed. Previously, he had been 0 - 5 (Raging Bull, Last Temptation of Christ, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York, and The Aviator) An odd footnote to this is that 3 of his losses have come against actors-turned-directors. (Robert Redford, Kevin Costner, Clint Eastwood) I'm not sure that means anything, but it's curious.

Six movies he has directed have been nominated for best picture (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, and The Departed.) Like best director, he had previously been 0 - 5 in this department until The Departed.

Let's take a look at what Scorsese was up against these years for Best Director and see how history has viewed his films and the winners.

I'd like to first point out that somehow he wasn't nominated for Taxi Driver. So, let's take a look at that year first.


Winner:
	Rocky (1976) - John G. Avildsen
Other Nominees:
	All the President's Men (1976) - Alan J. Pakula Ansikte mot ansikte (1976) - Ingmar Bergman Network (1976) - Sidney Lumet Pasqualino Settebellezze (1975) - Lina Wertmüller

While the other nominees are either worthy (All the President's Men, Network) and the other two I can't judge because I haven't seen them, I can state with certainty that the direction in Taxi Driver was superior to Rocky. Rocky also took home best picture that year (where Taxi Driver did get a nomination.)

Now, let's look at the first nomination: Raging Bull.


Winner:
	Ordinary People (1980) - Robert Redford (I)
Other Nominees:
	Elephant Man, The (1980) - David Lynch (I) Raging Bull (1980) - Martin Scorsese Stunt Man, The (1980) - Richard Rush (I) Tess (1979) - Roman Polanski

I have the same thought here that I do for Best Picture in 1980. The Elephant Man and Raging Bull took votes away from each other. Both are classics, and I could accept The Elephant Man here, but Ordinary People? Give me a break.

Next we have The Last Temptation of Christ.


Winner:
	Rain Man (1988) - Barry Levinson (I)
Other Nominees:
	Fish Called Wanda, A (1988) - Charles Crichton Last Temptation of Christ, The (1988) - Martin Scorsese Mississippi Burning (1988) - Alan Parker (I) Working Girl (1988) - Mike Nichols (I)

A controversial movie about Jesus against a movie about someone with a mental issue? He never had a chance. Hollywood loves movies like Rain Man and the actors who play the characters. (This just goes to show how bad Cuba Gooding Jr. was in Radio. You really have to be terrible to not get a sympathy nod.)

Next up we have Goodfellas.


Winner:
	Dances with Wolves (1990) - Kevin Costner
Other Nominees:
	Godfather: Part III, The (1990) - Francis Ford Coppola Goodfellas (1990) - Martin Scorsese Grifters, The (1990) - Stephen Frears Reversal of Fortune (1990) - Barbet Schroeder

Here we have the infernal Dances with Wolves winning. Everyone was in love with Kevin Costner that year, and it ultimately led him to make bloated (even more so than Wolves) movies like the infamous Waterworld and The Postman. Goodfellas pistol whips Dances with Wolves in front of all its friends in the driveway. Also, how did Godfather III get so much love from voters?

Following Goodfellas, the next film nominated was Gangs of New York. Nominated for 10 Academy Awards, it walked away with squadoosh. In terms of directors, this is how the nominees looked:

Winner:
	Pianist, The (2002) - Roman Polanski - Roman Polanski was not present at the awards ceremony, being a fugitive from U.S. justice since fleeing the country in 1978. Presenter Harrison Ford (I) accepted the award on his behalf.
Other Nominees:
	Chicago (2002) - Rob Marshall Gangs of New York (2002) - Martin Scorsese Hable con ella (2002) - Pedro Almodóvar Hours, The (2002) - Stephen Daldry

Can't really argue here, Polanski is a great director. Holocaust movies tend to do well in Hollywood. I think we can all be happy that Chicago didn't win.

Finally, Scorsese's last loss was in 2005 for The Aviator.

Winner:
	Million Dollar Baby (2004) - Clint Eastwood
Other Nominees:
	Aviator, The (2004) - Martin Scorsese Ray (2004/I) - Taylor Hackford Sideways (2004) - Alexander Payne (I) Vera Drake (2004) - Mike Leigh

Million Dollar Baby inexplicably wins here. I'm not sure why. I would say any of the other directors could have taken this one. Also, Hillary Swank with two Oscars? Really? Is she really one of the top actresses ever? I'm pretty sure that anyone who starred in the movie The Core should have any awards taken away. With extreme prejudice if necessary.

"I felt as if I were asphyxiating in an avalanche of sagging flesh."

2007-03-05T11:01:00.000-05:00

If someone said the quote above to you, would you want to see the movie being described? (No, it's not Grandma Gangbangers 87. In this case, the movie is Wild Hogs and the unfortunate soul who had to sit through the movie was Michael Sragow of the Baltimore Sun.) I would say no; however, stupid people turned out in droves this week (to the tune of 38 million dollars) in order to laugh at the comedic stylings of Vinnie Barbarino, Tim "The Tool" Taylor, "Black Knight", Ghost Rider, and uhhh...William H. Macy.

Hey look, it's a bunch of washed up (Sorry, William, I'll let this one slide) actors in a movie about a motorcycle craze that died down for most of the country 3 years ago! I wonder who gets in a misunderstanding with a "Hell's Angel" type? I wonder who will accidentally knock down a row of bikes making every one run for their life? I wonder who'll get caught selling drugs and spend time in prison? (Oh, wait, that's Tim Allen.) I wonder which one will forget to pack some Depends and have to borrow a slightly used pair from John Travolta? (That's Xenu juice to you, pal.) I wonder how many American Chopper t-shirts were in the crowd? (Over half, probably.)

Thankfully, there was some counter-programming for the few of us (13.1 million dollars) who aren't easily placated with the loose jowls of Travotla in the form of Zodiac. It took something that could be done in a very boring way (based on the Zodiac serial killer from the late 60's in California), and made it very interesting and suspenseful. It also stuck to the facts reasonably well.

So, if you want to use your brain and see a good movie, see Zodiac.
If you hate your life and your self-loathing knows no limits, see Wild Hogs.

Who do I have to kill to get a good movie around here?

2006-12-29T10:18:00.000-05:00

Just over a year ago, my small town (about 15,000 rubes and multiplying) opened an eight screen, stadium style seating movie theater. Obviously, this was good news for me because up to that point I had to drive between 30 minutes and an hour to see a movie. Not only did this nice new movie theater open, but they even offer 5 dollar tickets all day on Tuesdays. This was ideal because no-one goes to see movies on Tuesdays and I wouldn't have to deal with a bunch of kids. (Wow, I'm getting old.)

My theater and I had a good relationship: it showed movies I wanted to see and I paid the theater money in exchange for this service. Then, something dark and sinister happened. The theater spurned my love and stopped showing any movie I would ever watch. I'm not asking for a lot here, just one screen to occasionally show a movie worthwhile. Instead, they have shown Happy Feet and A Nativity Story for 5 weeks in a row. They've shown Santa Clause 3 (It's funny because it's a pun!) six fucking weeks in a row. Christ, how much can one man take? I understand you want to show family films, but when you have 8 screens it severely limits other movies.

Borat was a huge success, but somehow never was screened here. That makes sense.
The Good Sheppard features Robert DeNiro, Matt Damon, and Joe Pesci. Something tells me that may be worthwhile.
The Fountain had no chance of being seen here, and that movie was one of the best of the year for me.

At one point the theater was screening films such as Little Miss Sunshine and that was hardly mainstream; then, their ideology changed and family films became the focus. I understand the box office potential is larger for family films because multiple tickets have to be purchased so entire families can ~~ruin~~ enjoy the moving going experience. And hey, what's more charming than Joe Commoner making out with his best-gal Brandine while her spawn from a previous ~~gang-bang~~ relationship, Billy "Lazy Eyed" Bastard, runs around the theater making his case against welfare?

Basically, this is just another example of me trying and wanting to give a business money and them telling me that they'd rather not have it. I guess I'll just stay home and watch Three's Company re-runs instead. Sounds like a great time.

Series Reboot of the Week: Casino Royale

2006-11-25T00:40:00.000-05:00

"...the world will know you died scratching my balls." - James Bond

James Bond is dead. Long live James Bond.

I make no effort to conceal my affinity for the James Bond franchise of movies. While most of any vintage are little more than two hours of mindless action, over-the-top villain stereotypes and completely ridiculous technology, there is something about them that makes them vastly more watchable than the of the XXXs of the world. Throughout the long-lived series, I've always been torn between Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan as my favorite 007. While each stayed ultimately true to the Bond archetype, their distinct differences have been the stuff message board flame wars were invented for. Given the loyalty fans have shown over the years for "their" Double-Oh, it came as no surprise to hear the uproar when Daniel Craig was announced as the next Brit to take up the mantle. I admit, I, too was a bit apprehensive when I heard him speak and saw images from the film showcasing his "pretty boy" blue eyes and homo-erotic physique. However, after my screening today of Casino Royale, I can assuredly say that all of my fears have been put to rest: Daniel Craig IS James Bond.

In this latest example of a refresh of a long running series (Batman Begins, Superman Returns...ok, so that may not technically count, but it's close enough) the writers and director decided to tackle the very first Bond novel, Casino Royale. It was also decided that, unlike the other 20+ movies that have gone before it, it would attempt to stick much closer to what Ian Fleming originally had in mind for his hero. Having not read any of the books myself, I cannot firsthand comment on whether they succeeded, but I can give you my opinion of the film nonetheless. Gone is the parachuting in a tuxedo only to land just in time for high tea. Gone is the endless array of all-too convenient gadgets put together by Q. What's left are bonecruching fight scenes that occasionally made me cringe, coupled with a genuinely interesting conspiracy thriller that plays more like a Bourne movie than Bond...but in a good way. Craig makes it believable that this is Bond's first mission as a Double-Oh, and his interaction with M (once again played by the ever-enjoyable Judi Dench is as good as it ever has been. Additionally, there were just enough subtle referernces to other Bond-isms to hopefully keep the fanboys happy without being over-the-top.

All in all, I once again have to reiterate that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. As a Bond movie, it was very different, but welcome. As an action-conspiracy-thriller, it stands among some of the best in recent years. While there will no doubt be controversy over Craig's casting for years to come, it would be a shame for the people already damning him to not at least give it a watch. I will say that it did run a bit long (2 hours and 24 minutes), and I was a bit annoyed at his leading lady (yes, we get it, you don't take no mess from any man), but none of these things kept me from enjoying the ride.

The Good:

Craig may be the best Bond yet

Anyone who still says M shouldn't be a woman needs to sit in the torture chair

Can you say 1964 Aston Martin?

The Bad:

Runs a little long

"Bond girl" needs a good spanking

The Ugly:

Bond-bulge in Speedo scenes

I don't want to hear about whatever movie you just watched....

2006-10-18T13:35:00.000-04:00

Because The Departed is better. That's right, I'm breaking out hyperbole like, "One of the best movies in the last decade." Seriously, it's that good. So, if you come up to me and say, "Hey, I really enjoyed Open Season," then let it be known that I'll have never wanted to elbow anyone in the throat more than at that moment. If you try to argue that Grudge 2 is more worthy of my time; really, just don't even talk to me about movies again. Or better yet, just don't talk to me. That's how serious I am about thinking that this movie is better than the movies you like.

Here are the things that make this movie better than other movies:

Martin Scorsese. What more can one man accomplish in film without being properly rewarded for it? Wouldn't you think that he would get a nod for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Last Temptation of Christ, Gangs of New York, or something? This has to be his year. (Naive, I know.) Cher has an Oscar. 3-6 Mafia has an Oscar. This is injustice.
The Cast. Just brilliant casting in all the major and secondary roles. No matter how big the name and how small the role, everyone plays the part convincingly. Mark "Don't call me Marky" Wahlberg really stood out to me. Also, if you are still harboring ill-will towards Leonardo DiCaprio for Titanic, let it go.
The Script. The movie takes a lot of twists and turns that really come out of nowhere, but aren't contrived and annoying. There aren't plot twists for the sake of doing them. I realize that this is a remake of the Chinese film Infernal Affairs, and that it is also supposed to be excellent. I plan on viewing this as soon as possible.
I don't know too much about authentic Boston accents, but according to former Boston resident and ESPN writer Bill Simmons:
It may have been the best movie ever for Boston accents. Going in, I was prepared to bitch about someone botching an accent and almost felt let down afterward that everyone did a decent-to-great job. In retrospect, I almost wish that they had hired Kevin Costner for Martin Sheen's part, just to mix things up.

This was the first movie in a long time that gave me the chills at one point, my heart rate up at another point, and not in the figurative ways. This is an intense, important movie. I would look for some Oscar nominations for the cast as well; though, I'm hearing some good stuff about Forrest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland which may limit any wins. We are in a boon of quality movie releases no matter what Hollywood is trying to steer you towards.

Non-movie related note

2006-10-09T10:35:00.000-04:00

If you missed last week's Southpark episode about World of Warcraft, you really need to check it out. It's crazy how after 10 years the show is even better than ever. Of course, if we are using the Simpsons corollary then it should start its decline any time now.

Tom Wilson is a funny guy.

2006-10-05T17:02:00.001-04:00

Tom Wilson played Biff and many of Biff's family members in the "Back to the Future" trilogy. He also happens to be a pretty funny guy. Check it out.

Little Kids are Smarter than Movie Executives

2006-10-04T19:49:00.000-04:00

A recent New York Times article (linked below) addresses the fact that everyone is burned out on animated movies. It used to be Disney would release a hand drawn animated film every 5 or 10 years and it would make an insane amount of money. Well, when computer animation became vogue with Toy Story, more and more film companies started jumping on the bandwagon. While following the Pixar model was very lucrative, there now seems to be multiple animated films out at any time. People are tired of the unoriginal, repetitive bullshit, which underlies a greater problem: When something becomes popular, media executives don't cultivate the idea and let it run a natural cycle. Instead, they ram it down our throats like we're their cheap whore.

So, what it comes down to for animated movies is that small children have figured out that all of these new films are all exactly the same; all the characters are interchangeable and none of them are memorable. The best part about this development is that studios are going to increasingly get burned with each release, and maybe some smarmy movie executive will lose his job. Won't someone think of the children?

Click for Article. (Sign up required)

What's wrong with you people?

2006-10-03T19:46:00.000-04:00

People a lot less picky than me always seem to complain about the lack of decent movies. Well, I think these people should shut the hell up because I read today that top two grossing movies last week both starred Ashton Kutcher. His animated film "Open Season" opened with 23 million and "The Guardian," which was described by Bob Bloom of the Journal and Courier as "...a male soap opera with echoes of 'An Officer and [a] Gentleman' and enough military movie cliches to fill a book of regulations," opened with 18 million dollars. While all of this is going on there have been a string of interesting movies released with many more on the way. Films like "The Departed," "The Prestige," and "The Last King of Scotland" look like winners, and "Idiocracy" sounds funny. Good luck finding the latter since 20th Century Fox did everything they could to squash it.

Basically, you can't have it both ways. Either avoid shitty movies starring hacks who were never funny or talented in the first place, or accept that you like movies that are the equivalent of a low-protein gruel cults give to their followers to make them more docile.

(Box office numbers from: Box Office Mojo)

Transform and roll out.

2006-10-02T18:46:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting article with Peter Cullen, better known as the voice of Optimus Prime. The thing I find most intriguing about this interview is the fact he was pretty much completely clueless about the show's popularity. We at Your Film Sucked theorize that since Cullen appears to be an older guy he probably goes to the studio in his metallic gold Lincoln, records his stuff, and never thinks about it again. Something along the lines of Krusty the Clown recording voiceovers in "Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy" (Episode 1F12 for those curious).

Anyway, while whiny fanboys (read: us) complain about the current raping of our childhoods, the actual people behind the show didn't even care what was going on. That said, Michael Bay is the devil. Click for article

Special Guest Review: The Wicker Man

2006-09-07T23:33:00.002-04:00

(Editor's Note: This week's review has been written by a special guest: the original Wicker Man!)

I must say that I was a little shocked when this website contacted me to review the new film version of events that I was involved in off the coast of Scotland some 33 years ago. (Not as shocked as Sergeant Howie when he was dragged over the hill to see me, but that's another story.) Considering I wasn't really my whole self after that whole ordeal, I thought this would be a good opportunity to get back on my feet. Well, let me tell you, this movie left me smoldering.

The story of The Wicker Man revolves around a girl is missing on a private island named Summersisle. Wait, someone needs to contact the filmmakers! It's Summerisle, they've added an extra 's'. OK, where was I? Oh yes, the island. A police officer is contacted from someone on the island in order to check the situation only to be met with a lot of resistance from the locals. So, why does this movie start with this car accident nonsense, and why is Officer Jon Baker in this movie? This isn't some sort of CHiPs/Wicker Man hybrid is it? I don't think it was related to the actual plot in any form, but since it was never explained how should I know? I'm just a giant, wooden effigy, so I'm a little slow.

So far, so....ummm hold on here, I'm not seeing a lot of males on this island. Ohh, it's a honey harvesting island of the ladies. This could be nice because I remember all of the naked, sexual worship on the original island. Let me rephrase, I thought it could be nice, like the original, until I got a glimpse of the women on the island. All I can say is, OH GOD! OH JESUS CHRIST! I take back anything about wanting to see these "maidens" nude or otherwise. This a haggard bunch of man-haters. Along this theme, Lord Summerisle is now man-hating, honey sucking Sister Summersisle who controls all the activities of the island as the living embodiment of the Mother Goddess. She tends to give Lord Summerisle's speeches almost verbatim with none of the flair or believability. Ellen Burstyn, who portrays Summersisle, just didn't cut it. She's a great actor, and should have won best actress in Requiem for a Dream over that toothy hack [Julia] Roberts, but she looks almost half as bored as I am right now.

The next thing that really stands out in this film is Director/Writer Neil Labute forgoes potential mystery and suspense by revealing all of the hidden plot points and nuisances that made the original story special and the end so shocking. The director must think the audience has been damned with little intelligence by the gods if he needs to spell things out with the subtlety of being bludgeoned. The original told a tale of religious and sexual conflict with a unique and fun soundtrack. The island of pagans found male and female sexuality to both be wonderful. This movie has ripped the soul out of that vision and left a poorly paced, plodding mess. It’s not enough of a re-imagining for anyone to claim that comparisons are not fair. Some pieces of dialogue and circumstances are lifted directly from the original; however, none of these issues are as lame as the new ending Mr. LaBute has added. It really is an insult to anyone with an iota of intelligence. Finally, I understand how a harvest of apples can fail, but how can a harvest of honey fail? The bees were still on the island so how were they not making honey?

I'd like to invite Mr. LaBute up into myself for a screening of how it should be done. Just go ahead and have him walk right up those steps. No, no, don't worry about the door. Hey, since it gets a little chilly we'll light a fire for him.
No, really, I insist.

Cringeworthy DVD of the Week: Chappelle's Show: The Lost Episodes

2006-08-31T19:25:00.000-04:00

I hope our loyal readership will forgive my momentary diversion into the realm of television, but I feel I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to offer up some sort of response to what could possibly be the most uncomfortable 60 minutes I've ever spent with a DVD. Whether you've been a loyal fan since the opening sketch with the black white supremacist, or a message board whistle blower, you have to admit that Chappelle's Show was one of the most significant television shows of all time. For two seasons it swept the ratings as well as the Emmys, and propelled Dave Chappelle into overnight super-stardom. Then...something went wrong.

I do not have the time to delve into the alleged reasons why Dave Chappelle turned his back on his show (and super fame and fortune along with it), nor is this the proper forum. However, as a huge fan of the two completed seasons I felt the need to offer up my concerns and criticisms of the final DVD released by Comedy Central featuring the "lost episodes", and why you should avoid it at all costs.

The DVD features three "episodes" which are made up of the sketches supposedly recorded in preparation for the third season. The sketches are hosted not by Dave Chappelle but instead by Donnell Rawlings and Charlie Murphy. While their feeble attempts at stand-up make this difficult enough to watch, it is sadly the sketches themselves which make a screening nearly unbearable. While it is reported that these were pieced together in preparation for an upcoming season, I find it hard to believe that they were anything other than what was left on the cutting room floor. A few chuckles aside, the skits make you feel as if you are watching a loved one slowly dying of cancer. At its lowest, Donnell and Charlie spend time asking the audience for their reaction to a particularly racially charged sketch. I came very close to simply stopping the DVD at this point, but I felt that I needed to carry on through the end, hoping that something would be redeeming, but alas, there was nothing.

The end result of watching this brief DVD is the feeling of seeing a sports legend playing far past his prime: it's a sad ending and a pathetic tribute, and forever soils your memories and impressions about the show. In most cases I would argue that to get the full impact of any phenomenon such as this you must expose yourself to all material that's available...however, in this case I can guarantee you that you are not missing anything by skipping out on this release. Instead, kick back with seasons 1 & 2 and remember it for what it was in its prime.

The Good:

- There is nothing redeeming about this DVD

The Bad:

- The comedy stylings of Donnell Rawlings and Charlie Murphy
- Cringeworthy sketches that should have been shredded

The Ugly:

- "Ask the audience" and their insights into racial insensitivity

Review on a Website: Snakes on a Plane

2006-08-22T22:41:00.000-04:00

"I've had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane!" -Nelville Flynn

Every generation has a movie that defines its time. A movie that tells the story in such a way that the audience becomes swept up in the majesty and shear power of the moment. Whose cinematography and story moves an audience through a breadth of emotions. Under this criteria movies such as Citizen Kane, Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Godfather are considered canon. Thankfully, this generation has its representative among the pantheon of great movies: Snakes on a Plane.

Director David R. Ellis paints a masterstroke in the beginning of this film. An upbeat number? A sunny beach? Am I even in the right film? Then wham! Someone is getting hit in the face with a baseball bat. Only a true visionary could pull off this slight of hand. Also, Snakes wastes no time in introducing our exemplar, Nelville Flynn (Bad Motherfucker). Nelville is your no-nonsense, ass-kicking FBI agent who takes control and is willing to stomp on a snake's head in the process. This is a man who does nothing short of biting the snakes back in order to safely transport a witness of a brutal murder back to the mainland from Hawaii. That doesn't mean he won't stop to shed a tear for a fallen comrade; though, I wouldn't give him grief about it later.

Future Academy Award winning screen writers Sebastian Gutierrez and John Heffernan know what makes a classic script. First, everyone knows you need some gratuitous nudity and drug use, so they are quick to show this. This lets you know that things are about to get serious. Next, you need gruesome death scenes. I'm not going to give anything away, but if it's a body part that can be bitten, a snake will bite it. After this, you need some comedy and what better than a wise-cracking co-pilot who uses crude humor to hit on the flight attendants? That's right, there is nothing better.

In all seriousness, this movie is pretty much review proof. Even without the name, you know what the movie is going to be going in. It uses every cliche you would normally find in a B-movie, and that's why it's so fun. At no point does it try to be something that it's not, and even the serious scenes are so ridiculous that you can't help but laugh. I would say that if you want to have a good laugh with someone, go see this film.

The Good:

A huge body count with a lot of creative deaths.
Samuel L. Jackson laying down the law for 100 minutes.
An appearance by the woman (Lin Shaye) who played Roy Munson's landlord in Kingpin.

The Bad:

You'll either love it or hate it. There's no in-between.

The Ugly:

As I noted in my review of Ichi the Killer, it is "never a good idea" to become "swayed by buzz on the Internet." With the huge Internet hype before the film New Line Cinema rested a little too easy and decided to not spend as much on advertising. The opening box office suffered because of this (approximately 15 million). NEVER LISTEN TO BUZZ ON THE INTERNET! The Internet is full of untrustworthy and penniless 13 year old cretins.

Snap-decision: John Tucker Must Die

2006-08-02T22:56:00.000-04:00

First of all, let me start this "review" by pointing out that I have not, and will not be watching this movie. If you feel that disqualifies me from forming any kind of opinion (aside from all the other reasons why I'm not qualified to do so) then by all means, stop reading right now and rush right on out to get in line for this work of art. No, really, go.

Now that the housekeeping is out of the way, where do I begin? Oh yes...do not see this movie. Do not waste your money or your time. Do not feed the animals (read: studio executives) and encourage them to keep churning out stinkers like this. Save your mortal soul. This movie is yet another example of the "teen" genre of late that features over-sexed, too-attractive-to-be-in-high school "teenagers" who get caught up in some zany adventures that usually revolve around either some sort of sports competition (a la "Bring it On") or "getting the guy/girl" (American Pie, She's All That, etc.). In this particular outing, it seems that a gaggle of ridiculously attractive high school girls have all fallen prey to the town heartthrob (the namesake of the movie) and formulate a plot to get revenge (which, incidentally, involves whoring out the new girl in town to him in an attempt to "break his heart").

In other words, 90 minutes of PG-13 rated agony.

Without having seen more than the theatrical trailer (which unfortunately was unavoidable as it was shown prior to Superman Returns), I can safely sum up the entire movie for you right now:

Zany montage of barely legal girls roaming the halls of the theatrical high school

The anti-hero talking with his stereotypical jock friends about his latest conquest

Montage of all of his conquests

Girls discover (gasp!) they are all dating the same guy

A plot is formed! But where to get a new girl?

Enter new girl

Plot commences

What's this? The anti-hero takes the bait! He's fallen for her!

Now to drive in the stake. But what's this? She's fallen for him too!

Hero finds a heart

Huge party-scene finale

Slow clap as John Tucker gets the girl

Everyone gets laid

Roll credits

In closing, I'll leave you with a quote that was on a television commercial promoting this movie:

"John Tucker Must Die is this year's 'Mean Girls'"

As my esteemed site-mate pointed out, that is like saying Ebola is this year's AIDS.

Dirty hypodermic needles and over-hyped teen movies for everyone!

Clerks II: Electric Boogaloo

2006-07-26T19:08:00.000-04:00

"That guy's being awfully forward with that donkey." -Jay

When I first heard that Kevin Smith was going to create a sequel to Clerks, I immediately had an uneasy feeling. Most everyone already knows the story of how cheap Clerks was made and the struggles behind it, so I'll save the story. Suffice to say it spoke to me because I, like Randal Graves, worked in a video store. Randal embodies pretty much everything I wanted to say and do while I was working there, and for over five years I dealt with all of the same customers made fun of in the movie. So, why would I be apprehensive about visiting these characters again? Because all of Smith's movies after Mallrats just haven't been as good. At one point, I would have probably excluded Dogma, but I find myself unable to watch it anymore. It is just too long and beats the audience over the head with its message. Thankfully, I didn't come out of this film cursing Kevin Smith's name.

Clerks II picks up 10 years after the first film where Dante (in a brief black and white homage to the original) opens the shutters of the Quick Stop to find the inside in flames. The Quick Stop's tragic destruction leads our motivated heroes to really change their lives: They work at Mooby's, a fictional jab at over-the-top fast food nonsense that was first seen in Dogma. After a few years, Dante is preparing to leave permanently to Florida to get married to his well-off fiancee Emma (Smith's real life wife Jennifer Schwalbach Smith). All seems well, except Dante had a one night stand with Mooby's manager, Becky (Rosario Dawson), and they have started having strong feelings for each other. This is compounded by the fact that their little tryst has Becky pregnant with Dante's love child. There is also much less focus on annoying customers this time around. In fact, there are barely any customers at all. That pretty sums up the entire plot. Very simple really, but this movie is more about funny dialogue and gags than plot.

The most satisfying thing for me was Randal. Despite this being another movie about Dante being trapped in a love triangle with two girls who would never go for his loser ass in real life, Randal easily has the most screen time. You would think that over the course of a decade that someone would mellow out, but Randal is easily more of an asshole now. He's absolutely ruthless and many times oblivious to those around him. Examples:

When confronted with the fact that the phrase "Porch Monkey" is actually very racist, Randal decides to "take the word back" and starts incorporating it into everyday conversation. This includes putting the phrase "Porch Monkey 4 Life" on the back of his uniform.
In a diatribe over the latent homosexuality of hobbits and the fact all everyone does in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is walk, "...including the trees," he makes a Rings nerd vomit all over the counter.
Various things including tormenting uber-sheltered co-worker Elias (Trevor Fehrman), serving a drink with ice cubes served out of the urinal and putting flies in a sandwich to an arch-nemesis from high school, and spilling the beans that he knows about Dante's love child to Becky.
In a now infamous scene thanks to ABC critic Joel Siegal, Randal orders up a donkey show featuring "Kinky Kelly and the Sexy Stud" for Dante's going away gift. We'll just say there's a little confusion on who is Kelly and who is the stud. It's one funny piece of beastiality...I mean, inter-species erotica.

OK, OK, so despite all of this, the film is not perfect. The beginning tends to seem a little forced--almost like it was hard to get these characters back into the flow. Also, there are a couple of scenes that are a bit extraneous. The first being an extended go-kart scene. We get the point: Randal wants to go back to his childhood. No, really we understand. Please, with the scene, it just keeps going. Also, the dance number out of nowhere seemed a little out of place. Finally, I was going to rip on the final argument scene with Dante and Randal, but since I can't think of any other way to do it, I'm just going to shut up about it.

In summary, if you were a fan of Clerks, go see this movie. If you are fan of Kevin Smith movies in general, go see this movie. If you totally hated Clerks, you may as well pass because this is most likely not going to convert you.

The Good:

All Randal, all the time. I bow before him in embarrassing fan-boyish fashion.
The return of the "Wrangle."
This is more of a "for the fans" to me than Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back was. Let's not speak of that one.
The resolution at the end is perfect.

The Bad:

Something slightly off-putting about Kevin Smith's wife.
Some extraneous scenes, but they are still tolerable.

The Ugly:

Who saw Caitlin Bree coming back at the end to ruin everything? I mean, wow, that was out of nowhere! I kid. I kid.

Overbloated Blockbuster of the Year: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

2006-07-11T21:37:00.000-04:00

--Insert witty Jack Sparrow line here--

Everyone assumed that Pirates of the Caribbean would be a rousing success, but after setting box office records for take in a single day (55 million on July 7th) and take over an opening weekend (135 million), it's exceeding even producer Jerry Bruckheimer and Disney's expectations. We pick up this installment of the trilogy with the wedding of Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) being crashed by British troops and the bride and groom subsequently arrested on charges of helping a wanted criminal escape. Well, lo and behold, there are ulterior motives by Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), head of the East India Trading Company, in the arrest of our attractive heroes!

As luck would have it, Beckett wants the compass of our as-yet-unseen star Captain Jack Sparrow (like you don't know who). Beckett strikes a deal in which everyone will be pardoned if Turner is able to retrieve the compass and return it to him. Turner agrees readily, and thus his adventure begins. In the meantime, Swann escapes and goes off to find her love, but she also strikes a deal with Beckett that still includes the compass. Why does Beckett want the compass, you ask? We'll get to that later. (And even when you have the answer, you still won't know why.)

Lest you forget who actually is the main character, we finally catch up with a drunken Jack Sparrow, fresh from some adventure and trying to find a mystical key. While off to swill some more rum (pirates love rum, of course), who does he run into down in the bowels of the ship but the barnacle covered Bootstrap Bill (Will Turner's father)! Bill has pledged a 100 year allegiance to Ole Davy Jones and delivers a message regarding Jack Sparrow's deal with Jones in order to captain the Black Pearl for 13 years. (Don't remember the deal ever being mentioned before? Me neither.) Well, since Jack hasn't repaid Davy Jones, he must now face the wrath of the Kraken, a mythical creature that's part H.P. Lovecraft monster and part Sarlacc from Star Wars.

Nothing makes a sailor worth his salt queasier than the thought of facing a Kraken, so the crew heads to solid ground, where Jack is mistook for the god of a cannibal tribe and is also discovered by Will Turner. This is convenient since the movie has already taken a lot of my time and patience. After some Benny Hill-like hijinks with cannibals chasing people around, everyone escapes back to the Black Pearl. Next, Turner is convinced to help recover the key Sparrow is searching for instead of stealing his compass. Not only that, Sparrow fools an unbelievably naive Turner (you'd think these characters would have learned something from the previous movie...anything really. Did the first movie even count? I mean, what's going on here?) to take the fall for him to Davy Jones.

Well, Jones (oh yeah, he's part octopus monster, by the way) doesn't fall for this scam but takes Turner as collateral and demands 99 more souls. While on the ship, Turner discovers that the key unlocks a chest containing Davy Jones' broken and still beating heart and the key is worn around Davy Jones' neck. (This is why Lord Beckett wants the treasure? Why does he want this? Can anyone answer this for me? Could this plot be any more absurd or convoluted? I digress.) Turner does what anyone would do to get the key away from a sea-faring octopus monster: they play some old form of Yahtzee! It's well-known that pirates love to play Yahtzee.

Next, through means I'd rather not waste time getting into, Elizabeth is able to rejoin the cast and is generally grating and shrill the rest of the way out.

OK, OK. I think it's time to take a time-out and review what's going on at this point.

Will Turner and his betrothed are arrested but can be pardoned if Jack Sparrow's compass is retrieved.
Jack Sparrow is in search of a key that unlocks the chest that contains Davy Jones still beating heart in a bid to break his bargain.
Jack Sparrow convinces Davy Jones to take Will Turner as collateral and will bring him 99 other souls.
Will Turner plays Yahtzee against Davy Jones in order to find out where the key is located.

From this point out, the movie finally sets itself up for some fun but falls short here as well. Outside of Johnny Depp, who has surprisingly little screen time, the action and jokes seem so forced and some of the gags are so ludicrous I was doing some serious clock watching. Even if I wanted to "reveal" the ending, I really wouldn't be giving anything away because absolutely nothing is resolved. That would be forgivable if this movie were fun to watch, but it's so mired in the insanity of its plot that it can't really get going. Do yourself a favor: don't fall into the hype. This takes more than "checking your brain at the door" to stomach despite the wonderful visuals. Basically, if eye candy could give you crippling diarrhea, Pirates of the Caribbean would be it.

The Good:

Johnny Depp, when he's on the screen, is really funny. At one point, he is unseen for at least 20 minutes, which is insanity.
Some of the best special effects I've seen.
It's always good to see Jonathan Pryce in visible roles as he is the star of one of my top 5 favorite movies--Brazil.

The Bad:

The anti-Depp, Orlando Bloom, is on the screen way too much, thus crushing my will as not only a movie watcher but as a human being.

The Ugly:

The plot. What else can I say? There was no need to try to tell two or three different stories. Why not just pick one and go with that?
This movie resolves nothing; it only sets everyone up for part three. Well, here are some predictions for part three: Jack Sparrow straightens up his deceiving ways to be the lovable but still off-kilter character mothers dream him to be. Will and Elizabeth finally get married, with the blessing of Elizabeth's aristocratic father. Davy Jones goes back to his locker, and you have lined the fat pockets of Disney with 10 more dollars.

Comic Book Movie that's not-a-remake-but-everyone-thinks-it-is of the Week: Superman Returns

2006-07-08T13:40:00.000-04:00

"...I'm always around." - Kal-el of Krypton

Superman. The Man of Steel. The Man of Tomorrow. Kal-el. The Last Son of Krypton. Call him what you will, he has been a part of American culture for over 70 years. From countless comic book appearances to television series to cartoons (and, of course, feature-length movies) you would be hard-pressed to find someone who is not at least vaguely familiar of the story of a young extra-terrestrial-turned superhero. Superman is, many would argue, as American as Apple Pie.

So, to many, is the Christopher Reeve characterization of Clark Kent/Superman, as many have only experienced the story by watching the Reeve series of movies. Perhaps it is because of this that many of the people I have spoken to about this movie seem to dismiss it without a further thought. "They shouldn't have remade it" one told me when we were discussing the movie prior to its release. "He's not big enough to be Superman-Christopher Reeve was a lot bigger" another one said. I've had a difficult time convincing people that this is not a remake of the original Reeve-Superman, but rather a loose continuation of the universe that Richard Donner created in 1978.

The film stars relative-unknown Brandon Routh as this generation's Clark Kent/Superman, Kate Bosworth as a very petite and very young Lois Lane, and Kevin Spacey as a creepily splendid Lex Luthor. The basic premise of the movie (if you ignore the meta-connections to Superman & Superman II) is that, upon learning that Krypton may still exist, Superman leaves Earth to search out just what remains of his homeworld, and returns (go figure) after a five year absence. What we are faced with is a World Without a Superman-what happens when Earth's biggest hero deserts us, and how do those he helped (and those he loved) deal with having to move on. This, of course, implies a movie that is less non-stop action and over-the-top special effects, but a drama and love story set against this familiar landscape. It is for this reason I think perhaps that this film has suffered the most in both its reviews and acceptance by moviegoers.

On the surface, the effects are polished and come across almost flawlessly. Performances are also in line with what is apparently expected of the Superman franchise (some would argue that Routh's "Reeve" is a little over-the-top, but I found it to be just enough to remind you of the original films while not detracting from his portrayal). Bosworth is a bit underwhelming, and totally miscast if real age would be any consideration. Spacey is, some have said, 'too much like Lex Luthor', but I think he did an excellent job with this role. While it's not likely to garner any Oscar nominations for leading or supporting roles (although if given a chance I would nominate Spacey in a heartbeat) I think it shows just what a talented director Bryan Singer really is, especially when contrasted with what happened to the X-men franchise after his departure. The conflict, while nothing spectacular and in some cases a bit drawn out, serves the underlying tone of the film, and sets up for the big "twist" (which I won't go into here).

I have to add that, given our propensity for writing about films which suck, penning this review was difficult, since I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. So, I will wrap up here in our normal fashion, but if anyone wants to hear more or discuss this further, please post something in the comments section.

The Good:

Amazing performance by Kevin Spacey; believable portrayal by Brandon Routh
Spot-on effects and visuals
The original John Williams score!
Marlon "Beyond the Grave" Brando in his big screen return!

The Bad:

Movie tends to drag a bit about halfway through: could have been cut by 20-30 minutes
Ho-hum crisis to solve
No "Miss Teschmacher!" bellow

The Ugly:

"Truth, Justice...all that stuff"
Super-bulge

Juventude Guerrero's Film of the Week: Nacho Libre

2006-06-22T08:47:00.000-04:00

"Chancho, when you are a man, sometimes you wear stretchy pants in your room. It's for fun." -Nacho Libre

There has been a rash of seemingly anti-religion movies on this site and on the screen. Well, strike a blow for Christ because Nacho Libre isn't too insulting and involves two of Mexico's passions: Catholicism and professional wrestling!

Some may ask what I know about Mexican culture. Well, I probably don't know as much as some, but I have been confused with being Hispanic. You see, when I was in high school, I was once called down to the Guidance Counselor's office. "This seems strange," I thought to myself. As I was invited in to sit down, my counselor revealed to me that there was a Hispanic expo at the nearby college and that one of my classmates (whose last name is Mendez) was going. She thought that I might also be interested in attending. "That's great," I said. "However, I'm not Hispanic."

Apparently, I should have played Jack Black's role because there's no believable way he's half Mexican. David Carradine is more convincing being half-Chinese in my favorite show, Kung Fu. I'm willing to overlook this, being a comedy, except that his Mexican "act" is basically his normal comedy schtick with a moustache and funny hair. This underlies an issue when Jack Black is the main star of a movie: It wears thin fast. When he's in an ensemble or the comedy relief? That is comedy gold.

I would go over the plot, but really, why bother? The movie may have worked as a short film or as a series of two minute shorts similar to what Mtv used to do with Jay and Silent Bob. The other characters are basically background to Jack Black jumping around the screen and being goofy. While this doesn't really entertain me, the movie is a Nickelodeon production, so I asked a 7 year old kid if he liked the movie. His response was a nod yes. So there you have it --a rousing endorsement from our youth to see Nacho Libre!

The Good:

One really funny scene involving corn on the cob on a stick.
Tapping into that much needed market for movies about Luchadores.
Easily amused kids will love it.

The Bad:

100 minutes of Jack Black mugging for a still shot camera.
A group of other characters who are neither funny nor memorable

The Ugly:

If I were to write one of those awful tag lines meant for posters I would say, "Even the fart jokes stink!"
I apparently angered the movie gods by watching this film because I had to drive home in torrential rain and quarter size hail. Also, a funnel cloud was spotted in the area. You have been warned.

Sexagenarian Film of the Week: A Prairie Home Companion

2006-06-15T09:06:00.000-04:00

"You can't put Descartes before the horse." - Dusty

When you read the above quote, do you laugh wildly or roll your eyes and groan? If you answered the former then you may be sixty years old or older. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, and there's a new movie that's right up your ally: A Prairie Home Companion.

A Prairie Home Companion is based on the long running radio program out of Minnesota where the movie also takes place. A show from a different time, new ownership has decided to shut it down and raze the theater in which it's performed. With this knowledge, the zany cast of characters perform with an extra zeal, despite the fact a strange woman is appearing and disappearing around the set and one longtime member dies after his performance. The rest of the film is filled with live performances and backstage "antics."

This leads to the major problem with this movie. If you don't listen to the radio show, most of the jokes don't work. They stand on their own on a small level but not enough to get a true laugh. Well, let me clarify: not enough to get a true laugh if you are not riddled with arthritis and slightly incontinent. Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin perform an infuriatingly long and unfunny bit where they tell a long winded story with no end with no pause for breathing. This is a trademark of director Robert Altman, and Streep and Tomlin attempted a similar brutal bit to honor him during the last Academy Awards.

Overall, I can't figure why anyone thought that this concept could sustain 105 minutes. (It felt about a half hour longer.) At least when it's on the radio you could read a book or flip through the channels to see if anything is on the TV. Other critics may call this film "whimsical;" I find that to be an excuse for a movie that just doesn't offer much. I can see how it works on radio, but it just doesn't fit on screen. With that said, there are a few things that did work. Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly make a pretty funny comedy team. The Descartes joke aside, they seemed to be having the most fun. Harrelson particularly received many of the best lines in the form of double entendres and "dirty jokes" as the cowboy Dusty. Reilly plays his foil Lefty, a dimwitted but equally funny western caricature. Next to this are the live performances. Much of the movie is spent in live performance led by MC Garrison Keillor, (playing himself) who seems to be everywhere at once. If he's not shilling phony biscuits ("Made from whole wheat raised in the rich bottomlands of the Lake Wobegon river..."), he's backstage telling terrible jokes ("Two penguins are standing on an ice floe. The first penguin says, you look like you're wearing a tuxedo. The second penguin says, what makes you think I'm not?"). Besides Keillor, there is a lot of singing and music in this film and it was actually performed onstage. Normally performances such as these are recorded beforehand, and even then by people other than the actors.

The Good:

Funny performances from Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly
Songs performed onstage instead of in studio.
A movie you can take your Grandma to.

The Bad:

Most jokes only make sense if you listen to the show or research it later. (Real fun, let me tell you)
Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin doing the horrible Oscar ramble AGAIN. Give it a rest, please.
Trying to make a point about the the timelessness of radio and that the performer is forgettable. Yes, radio personalities are martyrs.

The Ugly:

I was the youngest person in the theater by about 30 years and one old lady was giving me the evil eye before the movie.
Todd McCarthy of Variety actually wrote this line: "Rib-ticklingly funny at times and genial as all get-out." I'm by no means a great writer, but I can smell ass-kissing shit when I come across it. Also, "ticklingly" is not a word, Jackass.

A Quick Note: Mtv Movie Awards

2006-06-10T21:35:00.000-04:00

I tried to do it. I tried to watch the Mtv Movie Awards to provide some sort of commentary. However, I couldn't even get through the red carpet interviews. Not only were the interviews insulting to my intelligence, but they apparently hire the most bumbling, least charismatic morons ever to stutter at celebrities.

If you are able to watch all of this you are a stronger person than I.

Update: I just watched The Da Vinci Code parody. Brutal. Just brutal.

Utterly Pointless Remake of the Week: The Omen

2006-06-06T22:13:00.000-04:00

"Feels like I've been here before." - Deja-Vu, Iron Maiden

The Omen is a tale of the birth of the Anti-Christ, Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick), born of a jackal as foretold by biblical texts. U.S. Ambassador Robert Thorn's (Liev Schreiber) wife, Katherine Thorn (Julia Stiles, bearing a striking resemblance to Powdered Toast Man), has complications during child birth and unbeknownst to her loses the child and damages her womb beyond repair. Fortunately, another child is now motherless and a "kindly" priest offers this child to Thorn to spare Katherine from the heartache. With this pact, Thorn has unknowingly brought terrible fortune to his family.

Thus begins a chain of events ensuring that young Damien will ascend the ranks of society and politics, starting systematically with the suicide of his nanny so that an agent of Satan may be put in her place. Under the watchful eye of the new nanny and always protected by ever-present hell hounds, Damien's inherent evil grows stronger, causing consternation and despair in Katherine. While Damien is being guided, Robert is traveling the world, learning the truth of who is living in his house. All of this leads to the final showdown between Ambassador and Anti-Christ.

As The Omen began playing in the theater, I had a sinking suspicion that this film was going to be so similar to the original that I would be able to predict scenes in explicit detail. I've never been more right in my life. Further research led to the discovery that the writer of the "new" screenplay David Seltzer also wrote the screenplay for the 1976 version! I'm guessing the dialogue with studio heads went something like this:

Studio Heads: "We need a script for the new Omen movie."
David Seltzer: "I'm on it. Give me six weeks."
--Five weeks and six days of David Seltzer sitting around his house in his underwear eating Cheetos.
--One day of Seltzer digging through his old papers to find the original Omen script.
David Seltzer: "Here's the new Omen script."
Studio Heads: "Brilliant!"

There are some minor changes to note. They have added an opening scene tying together current events to the prophecy of the Anti-Christ. The filmmakers have also added the scourge of the modern horror film: loud music cues and quick cuts to make the film "scarier" in the form of non-sequitur dream sequences. The biggest and worst change comes in the form of Damien's character. In the original film, you feel that Damien is never aware of his heritage. When the original Damien screeches in fear when approaching the church, it is merely instinct. It is made apparent that the new Damien is well aware of his evil father and spends most of the film with a ridiculous scowl on his face. He is in on the secret, and it lowers the impact. The rest of the cast plays like a community theatre's rendition of the film. This may have been avoided by actually writing a new script to play to the new actors strengths.

The Good:

Some slick, if not cliche, cinematography.
Since the film premiered on Tuesday, I was able to watch this on $5.00 Tuesdays at the local theater.

The Bad:

One of the worst child actors scowling at the screen for two hours.
Tying the death of Pope John Paul II to the rise in power of Damien seemed random and awkward.

The Ugly:

Liev Schreiber for Gregory Peck.
Wait, who is playing Gregory Peck's role again? I want my money back.

Disappointing Movie of the Week: X-men: The Last Stand

2006-06-01T20:57:00.000-04:00

“I’m the Juggernaut, bitch!”

Few topics can so quickly reduce a generation of working adults into frothing, comic book-reading, bickering fanboys as the final installment of the X-men movie franchise. Grossing over $120 million in four days (making it the fourth highest-grossing weekend film ever) X-men: The Last Stand has proved to be one of the most highly anticipated pop culture films since Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Well, with great hype comes great expectations, and unfortunately this is one stand that fails to deliver.

The film is set sometime after the events of X2. Jean Grey is dead, and the remaining X-men are struggling to go on with their lives in the wake of this tragic loss. Meanwhile, it is apparent that a change has taken place in the political landscape regarding the mutant phenomenon. A new President, who is “friendly” to the mutant cause is in power, and employs Beast (played by Kelsey Grammer) as a member of his cabinet. The primary conflict and underlying conflict of the movie involves a purported “cure” that has been developed which allegedly suppresses the mutant genome, effectively rendering any mutant a normal, powerless human.

On the surface, the film appears to incorporate a great deal of characters and situations that fans of the franchise have been clamoring for since the first movie. The stage is set for the “final” battle between Professor X and his X-men and Magneto and the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. Previews showcased heavy action scenes and situations that seemed to be saturated with X-men lore. Sadly, what we are treated to is little more than two hours of a mindless action movie casually set against the backdrop of the Marvel Universe, penned by individuals who obviously have no familiarity with the series or its rich history. Characters that have been developed over the past two films suddenly lose their edge and crispness, making the scenes that are not over-the-top action and explosions (of which there are precious few) bland and uninteresting.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this movie is the reintroduction of Jean Grey in the form of the Phoenix. While I do not have any major objections to the way in which this aspect of the character was adapted for the movie (it would have been impossible to follow the comic exactly, as the Phoenix saga spanned a huge amount of time and featured an incredibly complex storyline) the way in which it played out in the film seemed almost an afterthought to the primary plot. Famke Janssen spends most of her limited screen time either unconscious or staring off into space in the background. This severely crippled character serves only as the central figure in the movie’s two most climactic events: the final battle between the X-men and the Brotherhood, and highlight if you want spoilers Xavier’s death.

In summary, if you enjoy Michael Bay-style movies that feature non-stop action at the expense of characters you can feel for, by all means see this movie. However, if you are at all a fan of the franchise (comic or otherwise) and have the smallest hint of a discerning taste, be prepared to be let down.

The Good:

Beast, Ice Man, Colossus, Shadowcat, Angel, Juggernaut
Magneto showing what a badass he really is
Sentinels and the Danger Room

The Bad:

Movie feels like Rush Hour 3 with mutants
Wholesale killing off of main characters
Phoenix storyline feels like an afterthought

The Ugly:

Bevy of new mutants where existing characters could have been used
Obvious wirework for action scenes

"Blasphemous" Film of the Week: The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-21T19:31:00.000-04:00

"Ahh! Jesus Birds!" - Me

Unless you're the child of an uber-conservative Catholic, you've heard the talk of Hollywood's latest corrupting film, The Da Vinci Code. If you are an uber-conservative Catholic child here's the rundown: Remember all that stuff you've heard about Jesus dying on the cross and the zombie Jesus rising from the grave? Throw all that nonsense out because Jesus was shacked up with Mary Magdalene and there's a "royal bloodline." Well, nothing pisses off the Pope more than Jesus babies, so a secret organization, Priory of Sion, vowed to protect the bloodline to the end of time.

Flash forward to modern times where the insidious Cathlo-cult Opus Dei is killing Priory members one by one, trying to find this "Holy Grail" of information. In the process of eliminating Priory heretics, noted Symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is considered a suspect after the curator of the Louvre is murdered. In reality, the curator has left clues in the form of anagrams to the truth: That Priory member Leonardo Da Vinci's artwork contains the answer about the Holy Grail! What follows is a lot of conjecture and hearsay that drives Christians crazy.

This film has taken a lot of heat from critics; however, they are being too harsh. The Da Vinci Code is by no means unwatchable and is pretty engaging if you apply some suspension of disbelief. In a good performance, Ian McKellen chews the scenery as Grail expert Sir Leigh Teabing, adding some lightness to a film that takes itself a little too serious. With that said, it does suffer from some problems. In lieu of a brisk pace packed with action, it appears they decided to cram in every detail and plot turn of the book. This bogs the movie down after 90 minutes of the 149 minute runtime. Also, because it's admittedly not your standard blockbuster fare, there's an extra effort on pointing out the obvious. Examples of this include painstaking explanations of terms like "anagrams" and visibly highlighting symbols on the screen as if we are all blind. Finally, through all the controversial dialogue, they repeatedly remind the audience that the ideas presented are theories.

The Good:

Interesting story.
Ass-kicking evil albino monk.
Causing people with nothing better to do to go outside of theaters and protest. Probably the first sunlight they've seen in months.

The Bad:

Cookie cutter performances from Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou
A little too much talking and standing around instead of moving the plot along.
Including a scene (Ancient Roman Christians voting on if Jesus was a man or not) that author Dan Brown admitted, after some additional research, was false.

The Ugly:

Overhearing the teenage girl behind me not knowing Ian McKellen.
People playing it safe by criticizing the film based on the plot so not to offend people.