Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts

Friday, August 12, 2011

The Moviesucktastic "Rape Films" List

A Serbian FilmImage via Wikipedia
In response to a recent viewing of the instant cult-status film A Serbian Film, the Movie Guys (Joey and Scott) dedicated the bulk of Moviesucktastic Podcast Episode #38 to rape scenes in popular and underground cinema. What follows below is a list of the films they named and discussed, posted on Moviesucktastic's Lunch.com Community.

The Moviesucktastic "Rape Films" List
Enhanced by Zemanta

Film Critic Dictionary - "Breaking New Ground"

Actress Lena Nyman from the Swedish film 'I Am...Image via WikipediaI'm done with movie reviews that feel the need to state/complain that a film "doesn't break new ground." How many films have you ever seen that actually "break new ground?" For that matter, when was the last time an Oscar-winning film was truly and unequivocally "ground breaking?" What ground is there even left to break? Critics who feel the need to state that no "new ground" has been "broken" are just grasping for a way to either knock a film they didn't like but can't effectively trash, or apologize for a positive review of a film that isn't quite up to art-house film-snob standards. You want to "break new ground?" Try reviewing a film on its own merits without trying to size up its overall importance when measured against the history of cinematic expression. A film isn't any less effective or entertaining just because it doesn't transcend modern cinematic principles or push the envelope on narrative structures. Let's leave this arrogant phrase on the heap with "Popcorn Movie" and "Guilty Pleasure."
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 8, 2011

Episode #39: Source Code, Skyline, Drive Angry

Movie nightImage by Andrei Z via Flickr
Episode #39 of Moviesucktastic is a cavalcade of random film reviews, as Joey and Scott do what they do best - ramble on incessantly about films they've recently scene. Among the films on their unplanned agenda are three films that have been regularly trashed by other film critics, but have somehow nestled their way into the hearts of The Movie Guys: Jake Gyllenhaal's time travel train ride Source Code, the ultra-low-budget alien apocalypse flick Skyline, and Nicolas "I'll Literally Do Anything" Cage's gritty comic-bookish car chase extravaganza Drive Angry. Thrill to amazement of listening to Joey and Scott talk about films they actually liked! You'll hardly believe your ears!


You can hear this uncharacteristically upbeat episode of Moviesucktastic on iTunes and Zune, or on Podcast Pickle, Podcast Pup and Pod Feed. If you are on the go, you can stream us on the fly directly onto your smart phone using the sweet-ass Stitcher App. And, as always, you can also download or listen to the show streaming at Moviesucktastic.com.

And while you're at it, be sure to drop us a voice mail on the newly acquired Moviesucktastic Hotline, 908-514-4470. Tell us how much you enjoyed the ending of Skyline. You know you want to.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 19, 2010

The Expendables Eat, Pray and Love the Hell out of Julia Roberts!

The Expendables (2010 film)Image via Wikipedia

MovieSucktastic
 Episode #19 salutes the male movie-going audiences of America!


As anyone paying attention to the never ending battle between Box Office Testosterone and Cinematic Estrogen knows, this past weekend saw the ultimate battle of the sexes take place in the Box Office, with the winner being determined by the yardstick of success that all Americans can agree on: Cold Hard Cash. The results were a major blow to the "Hollywood doesn't need to blow things up to make money" crowd, as The Expendables blew the ever-loving hell out of everything in site to the tune of $12,000,000 more than Julia Roberts' gelato-loving, soul-searching, globe-trotting feelings-fest Eat Pray Love.  And that's without any 3D money padding the ticket sales. Eat that, Cameron!


Unfortunately, MovieSucktastic host Joey was not on hand to share in the chest-thumping celebrations. While his triumphant return to the recording of Episode #18 was a great step forward, Joey is still dealing with the long-term emotional and psychological side-effects of being kidnapped and partially brainwashed by obsessive Avatar fanatics. His progress was coming along nicely, but an unfortunate incident involving leftover Chinese food and a late-night screening of The Fifth Element left him in a confused and agitated state of Na'vi regression. So while Joey is finally back, his participation in the show's recording will continue to be sporadic for the near future. You can't rush these things after all.


Scott trudged bravely along, however, blazing new ground as he read some poorly-written listener hate-mail during the show's second half. It seems that an angry Twilight fan took him up on his challenge to the hordes of Twilight Tweens to sound of against him for his harsh review of Twilight: New Moon. Scott performs a dramatic reading of the letter then responds to it, although not as harshly as one might expect.


To round things up, Scott introduces a new expletive-laden feature to the show, and enters James Cameron as the first honorary subject. Cameron made some rather ill-advised comments about 3D films and Kathryn Bigelow's Hurt Locker Oscar win in a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly, and Scott eagerly pounces on these telling Cameron Quotes, using them as yet another excuse to openly insult the man now worshiped by millions of misguided Avatar fans. His comments, while insightful, are not recommended for small children, clergy, or those with a weak and easily offended constitution. But then again, what's new?


Scott's celebration of Manliness and James Cameron hate-fest can be listened to or downloaded from iTunesPodcast AlleyPodcast.com orMovieSucktastic.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, July 5, 2010

Bad Movie Review - The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

sixImage by 13 Days. via Flickr
"Team Edward or Team Jacob?"

The smiling goth in the ticket booth at the drive-in means no harm. Her words are not spoken out of spite or malice, and there is no malicious intent behind her question. She is simply trying to share in the excitement of the theatrical release of the third film in the Twilight series, based on the novels by Stephanie Meyer. As far as she knows, the only reason someone would be paying to see Eclipse opening weekend is that they share in the joyful anticipation of yet another chapter of Bella and Edward's ongoing saga. She doesn't know the pain that her words inflict upon me, the shame and humility that comes with subjecting a grown man to this question. I should not be in a position that might force me to choose between Team Jacob or Team Edward. No man in his thirties should have to make such a choice.

But the girl means well, so I am not impolite. I smile and tell her that I am here simply to see the film so that I can review it for my film-review site and podcast dedicated to bad movies, and that I probably won't like it. Therefore, I really can't choose a side in the film's romantic triangle, as I am ultimately indifferent. Not quite grasping my reasoning, the young goth cheerily hands me my ticket stub and waves me through. Her farewell comment slaps me in the back of the head like a dull, rusty hatchet.

"Enjoy the show!"

At this point, you will probably guess that I approached my viewing of Eclipse with a fairly heavy bias. In my defense, it is hard to view a film sequel without any preconceived notions, unless the sequel in question is a vast departure from the previous films. There is very little about Eclipse that is a departure from the first two films in the series, other than a new director and a few fresh faces. I know. I've watched the previous films, so I am entitled to my so-called bias. I have earned it, one painful minute at a time.

First comment: The film opens with a Robert Frost poem. If there is anything more annoying than a romantic teen drama that opens with the lovestruck female lead reading a poem, it would be a romantic teen drama that opens with the lovestruck female lead reading a Robert Frost poem. If that isn't bad enough, the poem she reads is Fire and Ice. I don't care how much Bela's choice between the undead Edward and fiery-tempered Jacob is, nor do I care that the intended audience is middle-school students. This is still a exceedingly lame choice.

The third film of the Twilight series finds the main characters in pretty much the exact position that they were in  during the last one; Bela and Edward are still madly in love, Jacob is still a contender for Bela's love, and the redheaded vampire from the first film is still trying to kill Bela, Edward and his family of sweater-clad good-guy vampires. That about wraps everything up.

There is indeed a plot flowing through this familiar territory, but it is a rather thin stream of storyline, and the water isn't all that fresh. It seems that a local boy who ran away a year ago (in case you forget this, the film will kindly remind you every fifteen minutes or so until it becomes even more irrelevant) is now wandering the streets of Seattle raising an army of freshly turned vampires creatively dubbed Newborns for some nefarious purpose that just might involve Bela's angst-ridden heartthrobs and a few previously established not-so-nice sweater-less vampires.

Second Comment: Do we need to show the Space Needle in every Seattle shot? I can understand the establishing shots, but even well after the location of the young army-raising Forks-raised vampire has been repeated numerous times throughout the film, we are still subjected to the Space Needle looming ominously in the background. Apparently, when you live in Seattle, there is no escaping the omnipresent Space Needle.

Don't get all worked up at the thought of a vampire army. The word "army" is thrown around quite a bit, but the actual horde that ends up taking on the Cullen clan only number around twenty or so. The film actually takes the time to explain that a "Newborn" army is actually much more powerful than a human or older vampire army, so the audience shouldn't feel disappointed when the much-hyped battle against the Newborn army only finds the good-guy vampires and their werewolf back-up team outnumbered by a staggering two-to-one. Don't let the concept of an "uneasy truce" between the werewolves and vampires fool you either; for such a centuries-old animosity between two races of deadly creatures, they eventually band together with less trash-talking and glaring than is typical between rival lacrosse teams during a preliminary warm-up match.

Third Comment: Foreshadowing is a "literary technique used by many different authors to provide clues for the reader to be able to predict what might occur later on in the story." (Wikipedia. Sue me.) Showing narrated flashbacks and lengthy moments of awkward exposition that blatantly inform the audience what is going to happen an hour from now is not foreshadowing. It is annoying.  

This is the first film in the series to be directed by David Slade, who also directed 30 Days of Night. He also declared that he would never direct a Twilight sequel when confronted with the concept during an interview. Later, shortly after accepting a huge wad of cash to direct a sequel in the Twilight series, he claimed that he was only joking when he had said that. Another funny joke was played on anyone who thought that Slade would bring some of the action in the ultra-violent 30 Days of Night to Eclipse. The two scenes that might by jokingly referred to as action sequences are both shorter than Edward and Jacobs exceedingly boring and pointless heart-to-heart on the mountain peak the night before the big finale. The first was a brief high-speed chase through the woods that resembled the speeder-bike chase in Return of the Jedi more than anything else. Remember the aforementioned two-to-one battle with the football team-sized "Newborn Army?" There's the other. You might want to count the "training sequence" as an action scene. I don't.

Final Comment: When a girl pressures her boyfriend to have sex, and he responds by warning that it could be dangerous, implicating not that she could get pregnant, but that he might lose control and kill her in the middle of it, it is really hard to have any respect for the girl that says "That's okay, let's try anyway." If this sounds to you like the lead-in to either an extremely hot sex scene or an extremely bloody murder scene, you will be sorely disappointed twice over. Instead, you will find yourself subjected to a minute or two of very intense hugging and clothing-smoothing that continues until the shirts of both involved become partially unbuttoned, at which point they promptly decide that they have gone too far. And thus is played the greatest joke of all upon the poor men and boys dragged to see this film with their respective partners, and whose moment of hopefulness is quickly and brutally squashed beneath the heel of Stephanie Meyer's cinematic stilettos.  

Complaining about all of this is a moot point, however, as no one that wants to see Eclipse cares about any of this. All they care about is which potentially abusive boyfriend Bella (a name choice that is a slap in the face of any Bela Lugosi fan) chooses; the undead vampire that repeatedly tells her how much he would like to drink her blood as she dies, or the wild half-animal who has openly warned her of his potential for injuring her if he ever loses control around her. The fact that her indecision and dedication regarding this choice hardly changes from the last film shouldn't sour the fan base, either. It is so deliciously angst-ridden and illogically romantic that you could just die.

I don't want to be mean. I don't want to hate this movie. I don't want to tell the cheerful teenage Goth in the ticket booth on my way out of the theater that the movie she will probably see numerous times with her friends for free was the steaming pile of refuse that I thought it would be, and so much more beyond. But I'd be lying if I said anything otherwise. This is not a film. This is the third act in a four-part abstinence campaign disguised as a supernatural love-story that seems perfectly fine with teaching young girls to avoid sex, but readily risk their immortal soul or hideous disfigurement at the first dreamboat they bump into before graduation.

Eclipse sucked. So there, I said. It might be an unpopular opinion, but it is an opinion I have nonetheless earned. Just ask the young teenage Goth girl in the ticket booth that I made cry.

For the full verbal onslaught of this review, check out episode #17 of MovieSucktastic on iTunesPodcast AlleyPodcast.com orMovieSucktastic.com.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Plan 9 From Outer Space... in 3D!!!

Film: Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) Director:...Image via Wikipedia
CRISWELL PREDICTS!! I predict education will be given to children through the television screen, no personal teachers, but there will be a warden on duty to see that one hundred percent interest is sustained. Later, education-memory pills will help give you all of the education you can possibly use.
- Jerome King Criswell

Now here's an interesting development in the gradual market saturation of 3D films in both the theater and now on DVD/Blu-Ray. It seems like the studios have been going out of their way to force 3D graphics into every mini-epic and pseudo-blockbuster hitting the screens over the past year. Well, they've finally gone ahead and started cranking out crappy movies in 3D as well. No, I don't mean Clash of the Titans. We're talking really crappy. No, I'm still not talking about Clash of the Titans.

It turns out that the minds behind the 3D technology at PassmoreLab , the “World’s Largest 3D Content Provider,” have decided to showcase proprietary conversion technology by releasing a 3D version of one of the worst films ever produced, Ed Wood's seminal cult classic Plan 9 From Outer Space. Using the print restored and colorized by Legend Films in 2006, they will be going through the film frame-by-frame and converting Wood's error-riddled smörgÃ¥sbord of shoddy filmmaking into glorious high-resolution 3D entertainment.

This seems to be a follow-up to their 3D conversion of the original Night of the Living Dead, which leads me to believe that they are practicing their handiwork on public domain films in order to showcase the capabilities of their process with as little overhead has possible. No complaints here, as long as they keep picking high-profile films that are entertaining to watch with or without the funny glasses. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing Tor Johnson's arms stretching out past the screen in my direction. Beats giant Smurfs with arrows any day of the week.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Podcast #16 - The A-Team, Drive-Ins, and Dog Owners

Yes, the MovieSucktastic podcast is back on schedule, after an extended hiatus so Scott could (unsuccessfully) attempt to track down co-host Joey, who was abducted last month by militant Avatar fanatic in retaliation for his past anti-Avatar reviews.

But the hunt is over now, and Scott is back in action and well into the MovieScottastic swing of things with his full-on review of The A-Team, which he screened at Becky's Drive-In. This, of course, also leads to a brief rant about moviegoers and drive-in moviegoers, and their never ending quest to ruin the movie-going experience for the general public. Here's a quick preview: what do you do when a crying baby isn't loud enough to disrupt the film? Bring the dogs along as well, of course.

So tune in and check out the latest on the A-Team, as well as Scott's opinion on the film's lack of a Mr. T cameo. I pity the fool who doesn't listen to the latest episode, either at iTunes, Podcast Alley, Podcast.com or MovieSucktastic.com. Current plans for the next episode include reviews of Killers, The Human Centipede, and Deadtime Stories..

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, June 14, 2010

Movie Review: The A-Team

A-Team movie - TitleImage by Daniel Semper via Flickr
TV Show Adaptations have been the theatrical kiss of death for a long time now. Not because the idea of taking an old beloved television series and modernizing it in a feature film isn't a plausible idea, but because the studios almost always drop the ball. Most of the time, they play the revival for comic effect instead of nostalgic revival, like The Dukes of HazardStarsky and Hutch and Charlie's Angels. When they occasionally do take the update seriously, like Miami Vice, The Mod Squad and Swat, it turns out that no one really wanted one in the first place. Then you have just flat out cinematic abortions like The Avengers, Bewitched, Mission Impossible and Wild Wild West. Classic-cartoons-turned-live-action-films like Fat Albert, Scooby Doo, Inspector Gadget, Josie and the Pussycats and The Flintstones populate their own private level of Hell.

So when do the studios get it right? Not very often, I'm afraid. But in the case of The A-Team, a generation's favorite soldiers of fortune have escaped the land of fond childhood memories unscathed. Of course, if anybody could do it, it would have to be these guys. Hell, they escaped a federal prison using garbage bags and hair dryers. Take that, MacGyver.

From the opening scene, you know you are in good hands with this modern revision of America's favorite wrongfully imprisoned special forces soldiers turned vigilantes on the run. The film's (and main character's) introduction is stylistic, endearing, and undeniably cool. There is no attempt to mimic or mock the original show's style, which keeps it from falling into the realm of intentional camp, but it still manages to convey that childish joy and wonder that went along with watching the A-Team improvise their way through adventure after adventure. This is just as much an achievement of the actors as it is the filmmakers; much like J.J. Abrams' Star Trek reboot, the emphasis isn't on mimicking the original actors, but making the characters their own. This is especially an achievement for Quinton Jackson, who wound up with the task of filling Mr. T's combat boots as B.A. Baracus. The end result is that you don't feel like you are watching actors reprising old characters, but the characters themselves, and that's the hardest part of this kind of cultural adaptation. They even manage to squeeze the original theme-song in without making it feel campy. Now that's an achievement.

Size and scope are the most noticeable difference between the movie and the original TV show. Like any low-budget prime-time series, The A-Team filled most of its action sequences with air mortars, car flips, and stunt men pinwheeling through the air from fake explosions. Compare that to the film's budget of $110 Million, and suddenly you go from air mortars to exploding CGI tankers and high-speed chase sequences with helicopters and fighter drones. This kind of over-the-top spectacle threatens to overwhelm the film's modest origins at times (especially during the climactic ending), but the superb acting and sharp dialogue help anchor the film in its nostalgic roots. Combining nostalgia with modernization is hard, especially when dealing with a show as iconic as The A-Team. Let's face it, how many TV shows can you name from just hearing someone hum the first four notes of the theme song?

It also helps that the screenwriters know how to do a proper villain. A lot of action films these days (since the 90s, actually) make it a habit of presenting dark, foreboding bad guys who smirk maliciously and kill puppies every ten minutes just to remind everyone how evil they are. This is far from the case with The A-Team; Patrick Wilson and Brian Bloom are given dark characters with personalities that make them as entertaining and fun to watch as the heroes. They do just as much wisecracking as the good guys, and manage to keep plot-forwarding scenes from feeling like mere pauses between action sequences. They're so fun and colorful, you wouldn't mind seeing them team up in a spin-off show (maybe they could run a day-care center together and solve crimes at night?). The rapid-fire banter throughout the film elevates this feeling, and often the dialogue actually increases the tempo of an action sequence instead of slowing it down.

The real kick in the pants is that The A-Team hit the screens only a month or so after the abysmal MacGruber. Side-by-side, these are the perfect Goofus and Gallant of adapting 80s TV shows. On one hand, you have people unwilling to seriously tackle an iconic prime-time show, so the instead do a mock-parody-spoof and tank the whole thing. On the other hand, The A-Team is modernized, taken seriously enough to not mock itself self-consciously, and manages to make an entertaining action film that retains the charm and appeal of the original series. You see, that's how it's done.

The biggest complaint I probably have regarding the film is the lack of a Mr. T cameo. An after-credits sequence features Bradley Cooper and Shartlo Copley bumping into Dirk Benedict and Dwight Schultz (the original Face and Murdock), but Mr. T and George Peppard were conspicuously absent. Peppard's reluctance to appear is understandable, considering he'e been dead for fifteen years now. So what's Mr. T's excuse? Seems he doesn't approve of the show being remade into a violent, racier PG-13 action film. It is usually comforting to know that some things never change, but I don't know how comforting it is that Mr. T still conducts his personal and business life in the same cartoonish black-and-white moralistic grandstanding that predominated his act when he appointed himself Protector and Mentor of All Children in the 80s. I could understand if he simply didn't want anything to do with the movie, but then he has to throw out the rationalization that he was afraid that if made a cameo, the filmmakers would try to use his name to sell the film. The last time I checked, the only thing his image was being used to hawk was Snickers Bars and Video Games, which is a far leap from the moral Mr. T of the 80s that preached the importance of eating healthy and outdoor activities to children.

But that little bit of unpleasantness aside, The A-Team is a resounding success. Sure, some people might feel the need to nitpick some of the action sequences as unrealistic and far-fetched (This Summer, you will believe a man can fly a tank...), but those that do are missing the big picture. Remember the garbage bags and hair dryers? That's right. It isn't about the realism or probability, it's all about the plan. In this case, the plan truly came together, and (sorry, but I must) I love it when a plan comes together.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Movie Review: The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

Promotional poster for The Human Centipede (Fi...Image via Wikipedia
When The Human Centipede by Tom Six was first recommended to me, I was sure that it was a joke. "No, really. What's it about?" It is the kind of plot that is almost too ridiculous to comprehend. Can you really make an entire film around... that?

Yes, you can. Of course, just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that you SHOULD. But they did anyway, and the result is one of the most grotesquely hilarious films I have seen in years.

There is no denying that this is a bad movie. This is the kind of movie that serves as the poster child for trash cinema. The next time some politician or infotainment host decides to raise the battle cry against the disgusting horror films corrupting America's youth, they will no doubt be waving around the DVD case of The Human Centipede as they scream for strict censorship laws. I don't even think I'll blame them when they do: this is not the kind of film you watch if you aren't into these kinds of films. This isn't even the kind of film that you admit to being into. I hate to throw the phrase "guilty pleasure" around with reckless abandon, but in the case of The Human Centipede, I think it is more than justified. This film is the dirty little secret you only admit watching and enjoying to those sick, twisted individuals that share your bizarre taste in cinema.

The plot is incomprehensible as it is simple. Doctor Heiter is a medical professional with a burning passion for experimental surgery, a very unpleasant bedside manner, and a skull way to large for the rest of his head. Famous for successfully separating conjoined and Siamese twins, the good doctor is now obsessed with joining things together. Heartbroken from the death of his freshly-joined three dobermans (his "Beloved Three-Dog), Heiter desides to step things up a notch and join three humans. This becomes possible when two teenage twits on a European vacation get a flat tire and stumble upon the anal-retentive (in more ways than one) mad doctor. They are the perfect victims: it is hard to feel much sympathy when the girls stumble upon a creepy German doctor with a bulging cranium and pictures of deformed fetuses on the walls, then gladly accet when he tells them to sit and offers them drinks. Two glasses of Rohypnol water and one dart-gunned Japanese drifter later, and all of the ingredients for a Human Centipede are ready and waiting. Let the good times roll.

How does he join them? I thought you 'd never ask. His brainstorm involves crippling the knees so the three can't stand up, and then surgically connecting all three people ass-to-mouth, creating a conjoined monstrosity with one continuous gastronomic passageway. That's probably the nicest way to put it. If you are having a hard time grasping the concept, fear not; the good doctor explains it all in great detail to his helpless victims, including visual aids shown on an overhead projector. Personally, I thought he would have done a better job with a PowerPoint presentation.

If this sounds like a spoiler, it really isn't. The revelation of this creation doesn't mark a climactic ending, but merely kicks off the second act. Your reaction will probably be like mine; a quick glance at a watch, followed by the dim realization that there is still an hour of this to go. This is where the film pays off, as we get to watch Heiter actually interacting with his new creation with the mixed emotions of affection and frustration you would expect from a new pet owner with irrational expectations and a monstrously skin-stretching skull. I'm not kidding, his head is huge. It actually distracts from the Human Centipede. Dieter Laser, the man behind the freakish head, makes the movie. His emotional outbursts, creepy delivery and crazed expressions  never fail to delight, and there isn't a moment that you don't believe in the character. When Dr. Heiter actually weeped at the unveiling of his creation, I couldn't help get a little teary-eyed myself. My favorite part is when he takes the Human Centipede out on the lawn for training. I'm sure it will be yours as well.

The genius behind The Human Centipede is that it is not overly graphic. You'll probably see more blood and gore on an episode of Grey's Anatomy, speaking of abominations of nature. What sets this film apart is the human cruelty and anguish of the mad doctor's victims, who are quite conscious and alert throughout the entire film, even if only one of them is able to speak after the first act. The film isn't shocking as much as it is disturbing, and it gets even more disturbing when you find yourself laughing at it. Yes, this is the kind of film that actually makes you feel dirty for watching. That's what horror films used to feel like. I kinda enjoy that.

This is not the kind of film that many will feel comfortable recommending to friends or family members, but just remember, it is all in the interest of science! Plus, The Human Centipede is also a great educational experience for the young ones; before your family viewing, quiz your children as to which part of the Human Centipede they would prefer being. After the film, compare their choices with the inherent realities displayed throughout the story. This is not only a great example of critical thought, but also teaches the lesson of being careful what you wish for.

Speaking of Careful Wishes, I should probably point out that a sequel, The Human Centipede (The Full Sequence) is due out next year.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, April 5, 2010

Bad Movie Review: My Bloody Valentine 3D

I've gotten a bit soft on remakes over the years, especially when it comes to horror film remakes. While there are many films that one can be argue should never be remade (Casablanca and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory come to mind), there are a lot of films out there that had good premises or even screenplays, but suffered from minuscule budgets or shoddy productions values. Many of the films we consider "classic" usually obtain that exalted status based on our emotional attachment to the movie rather than the quality of the film.

With that in mind, and despite ignoring any comparison with the original film, My Bloody Valentine in 3D is truly an awful picture. One of the first horror films to jump on the now obnoxiously popular 3D bandwagon, MBV3D is exactly the kind of film that gives horror films a bad name. Ignoring the chance to take an older horror film and effectively update it for a newer audience, the people behind this remake simply threw together as much three-dimensional violence they could get away with under an R-rating and cobbled a script together that barely justifies the illusion of a plot to take us from one murder scene to the next. Horror films don't have to be brilliant works of storytelling in order to be enjoyed, but the occasional semblance of logic wouldn't hurt, either.


Case in point: The initial idea of a bunch of miners being trapped in a tunnel collapse, and then one of them killing all of the others to conserve all of the oxygen for himself, is not wholly far fetched or fantastic. Taking it one step further and having the homicidal survivor mentally snap and run around in full miner's gear killing everyone he comes across with a pick axe is also quite credible. The filmmakers could have even taken the psychosis of the killer to the next level, insinuating that his fear of death has driven him to believe that every living soul he comes across is yet another threat to his life as long as they are still breathing his precious oxygen.

But, just because this traumatic event occurred on Valentin's Day, our demented killer is instead somehow motivated to cut the hearts out of his victims, place them in heart-shaped candy boxes, and leave behind notes that read "Be Mine 4 Ever?" There isn't even a back story involving a bitter love affair or an unfaithful wife leaving him the day of the accident to make this drastic connection between the two completely separate events even somewhat plausible. Just to add frustration to the confusion, why go through the trouble of having him leave notes behind with the clever word play involving Mine, bother to show him using the number 4 instead of spelling it out, but then having the tragic event happen in Mine Shaft 5, and not Mine Shaft 4? I'm willing to put up with flying pick axes that defy the laws of physics, but at least give me a plot-line that doesn't stretch the boundaries of common sense.

It is little things like this that add insult to the injuries left behind by bad movies such as this. The acting is more than acceptable considering the kind of film it is, the editing and camera work are commendable, and even the mind-bendingly lengthy nude scene during the film's opening act is just gratuitous enough to serve its purpose. But subjecting your audience to twisted and uninspiring plot logic that is as predictable as it is incomprehensible does little more than give them a headache, and that is inexcusable no matter what genre your film belongs to.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, March 22, 2010

Bad Movie Review: Surrogates

Surrogates (film)Image via Wikipedia
Surrogates falls into that category of films that end up being much better than anticipated. Films that do not screen themselves for critics ahead of the release date are usually predestined clunkers, as not wanting a write-up in the Friday papers is a red flag that the distributors are almost certain that the weekend box-office is the only shot they have of recouping costs before word of mouth kills the film. Expecting the worst, Surrogates manages to surprise with a decent story and great performances, even if this welcome deviation from the norm only manages to set the viewer up for a different fall.

The opening, of Surrogates, featuring a series of news clips marking the advancement of technology over the years, is an immediate red flag. Films that feel the need to dump a mini history lesson on the audience in the very beginning are usually the product of screenwriters or filmmakers that are either too lazy to explain the film’s setting through natural exposition, or severely underestimate the intelligence of the audience. This is the reason, for example, that Iron Man starts with a brief comedy/action scene transplanted from the middle of the film: to camouflage the Tony Stark Bio Montage as a transitional scene, rather than a quick info-dump.

However, in the case of Surrogates, this crash-course to avoid answering question throughout the film actually works to the film’s advantage. In the world of Surrogates, neurologically linked prosthetics have advanced to the point that remotely controlled full robotic automatons are commonplace. Originally intended to allow the paralyzed and handicapped to function normally in the world, Surrogates are instead used by a vast majority of the population, who sit at home in docking stations while indestructible versions of themselves take their places in the real world.

What is most surprising about the film is that it actually touches on the many themes for which type of scenario has the potential, more so than you would expect. Surrogates never fully resemble their users , but instead take on the role of either idealized self-images (younger, more attractive) or starkly contrasting fantasy personae (men masquerading as women, white and nerdy scientists as seven foot tall black men). Personal identity, public role-playing, self-hating attitudes and vanity run amok are just a few of the sociological viewpoints under examination here.

Then there is Bruce Willis’ character, a federal agent with a growing uneasiness towards Surrogate usage, fueled by his slowly crumbling marriage. Ever since a car accident that killed their only son, the still-mourning couple now interacts almost exclusively through their surrogates, demonstrating not only the emotional impact that such a tragedy can have on a couple, but the alienation that comes with human interaction through technology. This is complicated even more by Willis’ wife, played by Rosamund Pike, whose accident-scarred face is tragic reminder of her son’s death, one that she can only escape by living a new life in an artificial body. Even an advertisement for new surrogates for children raises even more issues: when it comes to the safety of your child, where do you draw the line between protection and isolation.

With this much depth going for it, you would think that the film would weigh anchor and build a story around these themes. Unfortunately, this is where the film ultimately fails, and where it all falls short: the apparent need by the studio for the film to fall into traditional action/sci-fi conventions. Ever since Terminator 2, any film involving robots invariably involves chases with super-strong/agile robots leaping around and shrugging off insane amounts of damage. Surrogates could have easily sustained several action sequences without resorting to robots throwing parking meters like javelins and wirework leaping effects straight out of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

This need to transform the future to such an extreme level leads to several illogical and convoluted premises. First, there is the extreme implication that ninety-nine percent of the world now uses surrogates; home computers and iPods aren’t even that popular, and it is seriously debatable if they would be even if they were free, which Surrogates definitely aren’t. Then, just to draw a sharper contrast, the film reasons that in such a world, those who refuse to use surrogates would end up living in homeless shanty-towns designated as Technology-Free Zones where shooting at federal agents and publicly burning dead bodies are acceptable under their own independent laws. The film then examines the religious implications behind surrogates long enough to make the anti-surrogate movement seem like a cult (complete with wild-haired Ving Rhames spiritual leader), yet not long enough to explain why the Vatican hasn’t led a holy crusade against soulless automatons that apparently enable risk and guilt-free sex for their home-bound users.

Surrogates is indeed far better than expected, but that doesn’t make up for falling short of its potential. Instead of taking the premise into new directions that few features seem willing to confront, the film instead forces itself into the predetermined molds cast from studio sci-fi films of the past. Shooting for a strange hybrid of They Live, The Matrix and I, Robot invariably ensures a swing and a miss, especially with an ending reminiscent of Escape from LA pasted on like a happy little bow. This is not to say that it isn’t worth watching. Just be prepared to be equally surprised and disappointed.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Deliciously Bad Movies: Hausu (1977)





Warning: watching this film clip from the seventies Japanese horror film "Hausu" might cause extreme confusion or brief psychotic episodes.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Oscar Watch Review: The Blind Side

THE BLIND SIDEImage by CityTalk via Flickr
Film: The Blind Side
Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress

The Blind Side is one of those films that people just can't help but rave about. It's the touching true-life story of Michael Oher's rise from the projects to the NFL thanks to the loving efforts of his adopted wealthy white Christian family, and everyone you talk to either loved it, really liked it, or is dying to see it.

There's no real reason why this shouldn't be the case. The film is expertly written, well-crafted, flows effortlessly, and pulls all of the predetermined heart strings in the proper order. And while no movie based on actual events is ever one hundred percent accurate, there don't appear to be any overly judicious edits or white-washing of the story like A Beautiful Mind; elements and details have been tweaked for dramatic (or comic) effect, but no one is coming out to challenge the story or its merits. This is just your average true-life Horatio Alger Rags-to-Riches story, delivering the heart-warming message that anyone is capable of achieving their dreams.

So why does it leave a bad taste in my mouth?

There's nothing bogus or unbelievable about the story; the Tuohy family did indeed take Oher in as one of their own (presumably because people with hard to read last names need to stick together), looking beyond the barriers of race. The fact alone that this actually happened should make me feel all warm and fuzzy about how far we've come in this country as far as race relations go. But after awhile, it feels like the whole racial element of the story has been sort of glossed over or, excuse the pun, white-washed. (On second thought, don't excuse that pun. I don't need your sympathy).

I know, I know; the Tuohy's overlooked race, why can't I? But no matter how much I try, it still nags at me. While the film does take a couple of brief trips to the projects where Michael came from to provide a little contrast, the rest of time is spent following a specific pattern. Racial prejudices or tensions are brought up briefly in solitary conditions, laughed off or comedic effect, then quickly stowed away again so we can get back to main task of watching this big lovable oaf blunder around winning our hearts while Sandra Bullock barges into every scene doing her best Erin Brockavich impression. The latter isn't surprising considering Julia Roberts was originally approached for the roll, but it also isn't what I would call a breathtaking Oscar-worthy performance.

This approach towards racial differences isn't just casual, it feels almost dismissive. Yes, it is brought up, but always in single moments with solitary characters seeming almost out of place in their reactions. Take the scene at Michael first football game. Are we really supposed to accept that not only is there just one racist spectator at a southern private school sporting event, but that the best insult he can come up with is "Black Bear"? I'm not suggesting that outraged bigots should have rushed the field for an impromptu lynching (is there any other kind?), but one extreme seems just as unlikely as the other. And don't forget the Tuohy's private conversation at the beginning of the scene, "Have you ever seen so many rednecks in one place?" This decidedly self-conscious attempt to separate this charitable and colorblind family from the rest of society is the film's way of almost admitting how unrealistic this race-free zone eventually becomes.

Maybe it would have been easier to take if the filmmakers had just pretended there was no such thing as racism. Then it would have been easy to become immersed in the multitude of heart-warming scenes involving this loving family taking this young disadvantaged child under the wings and showing him how to fly. But it just can't help but set up little laugh-at-racism tension breakers every ten or fifteen minutes, whether its a drunk uncle calling to ask if they know there's a "colored boy" on their Christmas cards, or Leigh Tuohy shaming her  "unenlightened" sister for asking if she's nervous about Michael being accessible to her teenage daughter. If racial equality is such a non-issue, why keep bringing it up for comic relief?

But does the film really need to delve into such murky waters when all it is trying to do is entertain and inspire? Well, no. But then again, race is why this became such a popular story in the first place. Plenty of black football players have escaped the ghetto, and there are plenty of upper-class white families with sons in the NFL. The novelty of a rich white family adopting a black teenager and lending him the family structure he needed to excel far enough in his studies to even be eligible for a football scholarship, is what makes it a story worth making a major motion picture about. You can't tell a story that is a testament to overcoming prejudice while being almost completely dismissive about the reasons why it is a testament and not the norm. It would be like making a film about teenage pregnancy that avoids the subject of sex; well-intentioned, but missing the point.

Of course, raising questions like these threatens to land you smack in the middle of a classic Catch-22 scenario. One group of people complains that the film is yet another racist example of rich white people thinking that they are the only ones who can solve the problems of lower-income minorities. Another group responds by claiming these reverse-racist accusations are what white people get for actually doing something right for a change. Then another group describes the film as an elitist-liberal-democrat wet-dream, which prompts another group to identify it as a one-in-a-million story used as a shield to hide the white guilt of rich pseudo-conservatives. Everyone's either being too sensitive or not sensitive enough. If you think I'm exaggerating all of this, just do some Google searches and see what pops up.

So maybe that's why the simplicity of The Blind Side's story leaves me feeling a little uneasy. Because if the reactions from all of these groups (none of whom I think I want to personally identify with) are any indication, the racial implications and ramifications aren't as simple and easy to overlook as the film might want you to think, no matter how true-to-life its true-life-fairy-tale origins may be. And while simplistic might be the perfect recipe for a well-received feel-good hit of the year, it isn't exactly what I would call a top priority for a Best Picture nomination.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]