Star Wars: The Force Awakens (PG-13)
"I've got a bad feeling about this." - Every Han Solo
"The Force! Man, that's your answer to everything." - Clerks
"Millennium Falcon? More like Millennium Pandering." - Me.
Sitting in a darkened theater with a dawning internal awareness that you might be the only one twisting in your seat, uncomfortable with the low-risk plot, the awkward references and dismal acting. The popcorn is gone, the soda dull, and in your head rings the awful words "It's just an another modern remake, they spent all that time and effort just to remake it, and its a bad counterfeit Picasso, a copy, a fake" while everyone else claps and thanks god for George Lucas' non-involvement. The trailers were a bill of goods, sold by the aggressively pandering suits at Disney Corp., pap made by a director who's made a career of swerving from expectations, and it's as well made as it is creatively bankrupt, a soulless zombie in an expensive knock-off Armani shambling forever towards higher returns. At least those terrible prequels TRIED to do something new and failed spectacularly. Awakens just regurgitates what worked before with a wet, money hungry plop.
Meanwhile Awakens looks like it was wholly constructed in the edit suite, scenes come and go at a breakneck pace just so they happen and not in anyway conductive to the pacing. A scene will end abruptly, cross wipe to a completely different part of the universe, then back to the first without rhyme or reason except for story reasons the 2nd had to be put somewhere. It doesn't feel thought out or meticulously planned unlike real SWs, it feels cobbled together good enough, and considering the plot is just "girls and guys with force and cute droids and xwings and star destroyers and deathstars again" there very little excuse for it. And there are soooo many conveniences of illogic, the new crew just stumbling upon the abandoned Falcon being the most egregious and unnecessary, apparently the Force can and will do that kind of thing now.
So it's a remake, let's treat it as such. The scope and feel, the "Lawrence of Arabia in Space" tone of Star Wars is completely missing from Awakens. There are few calm, slow moments of world building here; even the obligatory scene-wipes seem somehow forced and overly fast; you don't inhabit this world only glimpse it. The only exposition we get is from the fanfictiony text crawl and one very stilted and strangely unemotional conversation between a craggled Han Solo and a stone faced General Leia Organa (who looks for all the world like they tightened her girdle so much she can't move let alone act). Between her strange head tilting and his half hearted swagger it more resembles the cringey "I love you" scene from CrystalSkull than the one from Empire Strikes Back, instead of a stroke of genius its an actual figurative cinematic stroke. It's all punctuated by that "it's mysterious because we are keeping you out of the loop" thing that is the oldest of JJ Abrams' tricks, and we need more answers than action. Why would the Republic be in this ramshackle state, never mind the mention in the opening or the reams of comics Disney has put out, the underdog yet again? This is a movie, explain it! And John Williams, where are you? The only time the music is noticed is when it was once again rehashing the themes from the first trilogy, there is no new piece that stands out and marches around the theater announcing it's greatness. Then there is all the fan service, the god damned fan service. Capt. Phasma is a marketing dream and fanboy joke. The "No look shot" is as bad as Greedo shooting first, and you want your new bad-ass Jedi girl, who can do all these things without training cuz you say so, to inherit the beloved fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy? Then earn it guys, because otherwise its just another lame fan wish-fulfillment without the politically incorrect metal bikini. Awakens suffers from the worst case of big budget sequelitis ever seen, literally Jump22's ethos of "People want you to do the same thing, Again. Just a bit bigger. Same lines, same jokes, same action, everything."
It's not all rehash. JJ does some new things with the camera (but why god, why keep does he keep using the lens flares, it must be an injoke?). There are some fun ideas, new uses of the Force that seem a bit questionable, but the reformed Stormtrooper story idea is the best of the bunch (but who's character is involved in countless bumbly spoken word comic relief just enough to ruin it). He doesn't say "Yeah that's what I'm talking about!" once, but they probably did do a take and it's laying on the cutting room floor after checking TVTropes for relevancy and deciding against running it. Yet some of the attempts of new stuff are as bad as any prequel, Solo's side business is simply just busy work, eating up screen time and adding nothing to the affair but bad jokes and a lot of CG monsters. There is just enough practical effects thrown in to kill the "curse of the prequels" stink list for the fans, but the rest is all remake-orama, and none of it improves on the original. The fighter pilots all look wrong, and besides main ace Poe (well played by Oscar Issac, star of Inside Llewyn Davis), the Resistance seems to be staffed by fanboys-and-girls pulled from the ranks of Deviantart who don't yet have drivers licenses let alone a pilot's one. The bad guy is no Vader, he is a twink with a temper tantrum, the Emperor has been replaced with a pale CGI creature who looks like should be spitting out "GOLLUM GOLLUM". The Nazi Youth has taken over the Empire from the elder British statesmen because... box office? Old Men no longer start Star Wars it seems. The Rebels don't meticulously plan how to blow up the DeathStar 3.0, or send a crack team of top commandos and their entire fleet and barely scrape out a victory. No, they stand around a readout of the plans point at a spot and say "we blow this up, right?" and then Han Solo winks and says "I got this, you don't wanna know how" because his plan is stupidly self sacrificing; instead of bringing the Army he just flies over to infiltrate the planet with 3 people (2 he just met) and of course saves the day, obviously! There is no sense of urgency, the big kill-weapon has to charge up for like a day, but the Rebellion is so confident in Han getting the shields down (AGAIN!) that they don't even bother EVACUATING the planet that will eventually be blown up, maybe, "waiting to be killed, waiting to be killed".
In the end big things get exploded good, people hug, and yet it still doesn't end. The final oddity, the mapquest montage, the overdone out of place LOTR spinning helicopter shot with a stupid nospeak Skywalker cliffhanger, cementing that SWTFA seems more inclined to be the New Harry Potter YA film franchise than a true new Star Wars film in a finite universe.
Star Wars, we meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner; now I am the master.
4 Chubby C3P0's Unexplained Self-Referential Red Arms out of 10 (BAD)
PS - Kids will never understand the sweet tension build and release of the 20th Century Fox fanfare, LucasFilm Logo, and sudden burst of StarField and music on the silver screen. Sad.
PPS - Alternative Title: SW - An Old Hype
Showing posts with label BAD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BAD. Show all posts
Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (2014)
Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (R) Review
"Not a Film to Kill For"
Robert Rodriguez (From Dusk Till Dawn) and Frank Miller (Sin City) hit the bricks once again in a return to the gritty monotone ultraviolent world of sin and sex. Unfortunately no one seems really up for another round.
So what can we blame this misfire on? Almost ten years have passed since the original's translation onto the screen, and it must be admitted that most of the choicest comic material was put into that version. A Dame To Kill For is sadly not anywhere near the best Sin City story, and neither are the ones Frank wrote anew for the screenplay. The untapped potential is a bloody strike against. The Hollywood type "prequel"/"sequel" is confusing timeline-wise (not to mention full of plot holes if you try to line it up with the previous incarnation). The ghost of Hartigan (Bruce Willis, in a boring cameo) is present just because it increases star power and a sequel demands a return of the first's stars (supposedly). Marv, as played by Mickey Rourke, was the enigmatic star of the first movie, and so gets shoehorned into every place possible frame here which hurts the overall story. There is no equivalent of the excellent Yellow Bastard to give us a breather from his bizarre man-tics. He's always popping up to ask "how you doin babe," or "hey kid" to the other new or recurring characters as if to say yes, I approve of this addition. But does the audience? These new kids (Eva Green baring all, Josh Brolin showing off his orbital sockets, Joseph Gordon Levitt as a cocky gambler) do well but unfortunately it's the ones behind the production that just don't seem to have the spark. Miller's inks and Rodriguez's camera (with some help from Tarantino) brought the manic fury and razor-sharp Noir of the original to the screen almost a decade ago, and just don't seem to have the drive to fully return. There's a lot of machismo posturing but not much conviction. The visuals aren't as unique, the brand isn't as obscure, the story isn't as diverse or convincing, and with some of the best stories left behind for iffy new material or perhaps to fuel a future sequel that probably won't ever happen, it's a damn sin (even with it's harder "R" rating).
3 Who Shrunk Marv's Nose out of 10 (BAD)
"Not a Film to Kill For"
Robert Rodriguez (From Dusk Till Dawn) and Frank Miller (Sin City) hit the bricks once again in a return to the gritty monotone ultraviolent world of sin and sex. Unfortunately no one seems really up for another round.
So what can we blame this misfire on? Almost ten years have passed since the original's translation onto the screen, and it must be admitted that most of the choicest comic material was put into that version. A Dame To Kill For is sadly not anywhere near the best Sin City story, and neither are the ones Frank wrote anew for the screenplay. The untapped potential is a bloody strike against. The Hollywood type "prequel"/"sequel" is confusing timeline-wise (not to mention full of plot holes if you try to line it up with the previous incarnation). The ghost of Hartigan (Bruce Willis, in a boring cameo) is present just because it increases star power and a sequel demands a return of the first's stars (supposedly). Marv, as played by Mickey Rourke, was the enigmatic star of the first movie, and so gets shoehorned into every place possible frame here which hurts the overall story. There is no equivalent of the excellent Yellow Bastard to give us a breather from his bizarre man-tics. He's always popping up to ask "how you doin babe," or "hey kid" to the other new or recurring characters as if to say yes, I approve of this addition. But does the audience? These new kids (Eva Green baring all, Josh Brolin showing off his orbital sockets, Joseph Gordon Levitt as a cocky gambler) do well but unfortunately it's the ones behind the production that just don't seem to have the spark. Miller's inks and Rodriguez's camera (with some help from Tarantino) brought the manic fury and razor-sharp Noir of the original to the screen almost a decade ago, and just don't seem to have the drive to fully return. There's a lot of machismo posturing but not much conviction. The visuals aren't as unique, the brand isn't as obscure, the story isn't as diverse or convincing, and with some of the best stories left behind for iffy new material or perhaps to fuel a future sequel that probably won't ever happen, it's a damn sin (even with it's harder "R" rating).
3 Who Shrunk Marv's Nose out of 10 (BAD)
I, Frankenstein (2014)
I, Frankenstein (PG 13)
"Descend in pain"
Mary Shelly's Frankenstein has been a SciFi zeitgeist from the beginnings of modern media, and her magnum opus is quickly discarded then exploited for a pretentiously slick Action/CGI-laden good vs evil parable from the makers of the Underworld franchise (which are other pretentiously slick Action/CGI-laden good vs evil parables).
What is the story? Typical cookie cutter devils vs angels end-of-humanity story, the twist being instead of angels the good guys are hideous gargoyles, who actually just transform into fashion models in cheap, cheesy Ren Faire costumes.
Frankenstein's monster has had many iterations, from Boris Karloff in clodhoppers to Robert De Niro in furious agony. Most appearances have been hulking wretches with a sympathetic core, misunderstood and menacing. The monster in this update, underplayed by Aaron Eckhardt (Thank You For Smoking), is neither hulking (he's barely taller than most of the actresses) nor a sniveling wretch (he's more of an emo car wreck victim in a hoodie and jeans). While his choices (Batman voice?) and action movie adequacy are certainly up for debate, he is by no means the weakest link here. The entire film is weak links latched to the ghosts of better ideas done better (famous character turned into evil action movie, modern world with a hidden supernatural war, Frankenstein has the name Adam and dresses like a martial arts street skater, oh wait that's I, Frankenstein's one idea and probably it's worst).
If you ever desired to unironically see ol' Vick Frank's Monster in a kung fu training montage, perhaps this is your movie. If you'd rather see writers who create instead of lifting wholesale from the classics with stupid annotations, cinematographers that don't just copy other genre mistakes like Van Helsing, studios that don't rubber stamp dreck after dreck release, then you should stay away from this unanimated corpse of a film. For a movie about a recently dead guy fighting a bedeviled and Bill Nighy (Sean of the Dead) in shoddy prosthetic makeup, there are precious few signs of life and almost zero electricity.
3 Capital Fs out of 10 (BAD)
Need for Speed (2014)
Need For Speed (PG-13)
"The Need for Editing"
Adaption of mid-90s racing videogame staple "The Need for Speed" finds Aaron Paul of Breaking Bad fame behind the wheel of exceedingly expensive muscle cars in a bid to take revenge on his rival for the demise of his ex-girlfriends brother and coworker, whose death he was blamed for. He goes on parole, breaks parole and calls his soon-to-be-British-girlfriend who owns a 3 million dollar Shelby Mustang and proceeds to illegally drive across the country from NY to SF in his bid for vengance against former highschool rival now turned underground racing millionaire celebrity. That's about all the plot that exists in this overlong, over-plot-holed and over-pot-holed road flick.
The film is a hodge podge of everything that could be wrong with a film that will be scrutinized by gear-heads, film-heads or video game fans. Examples include badly scripted characters, including the quirky foriegn accented woman who can recite car statistics like a middle schooler quoting a wikipedia car on horsepower, ooo so empowered! Lighting schemes more distracting than useful with many scenes where the light is extremely artificial looking tied with multiple long closeups during tense driving moments just to spoil the mood! Car physics that defy the laws of, well, you know. Urban driving in souped up EuroUber-cars that is so reckless it would make even the late Ryan Dunn spin in his grave, may he rest in Jack-Ass peace. A thoroughly false sense of reality punctuated by the backfiring blast of unfunny bro-ish hipsterism (both in front and behind the camera), making NFS an exercise in overlong exposure to exhaust fumes with a complete poser at the wheel.
Not that its all skid marks. Aaron Paul's noble attempt at leading man stardom might forever be stunted by Need failure to light up the box office (not as stunted as his facial and vocal range chops, we hope), but he has a certain charm when he's not hoping he looks as cool as Steve McQueen. Then there is the laughably long "emotional" scene of Paul emoting to his "friend"'s fiery death; an emotionally bereft, head grasping, mouth gaping affair. Who is at fault for such a awful film breaking scene, the actor who pulls that face or the director who shoots it in slow motion (or the editor who allows it to linger on screen)? Let's give Paul the benefit of the doubt, he is likable when he is being his natural self. That goes double for the stunts and driving; NFS eschews other racing franchises crutch of CGI car stunts (looking at you recent Fast & Furious') and does it all in camera with real cars to a great grounded effect. The races themselves look good and move well, even if you don't care for those doing it. In fact, besides Paul and his rich co-pilotess played by Imogen Poots (no way that's a stage name!), the cast of actors all have somethings in common. They are all supposed to appeal to a young demographic, are written like stupid frat boys and all have faces that you wouldn't mind see included in a 3-car pile up.
If this movie had trimmed down 15-20 minutes of junk by removing the extraneous "comedy" or "wow cool" bits, focusing instead on the realistic adrenaline junky aspect of speeding down the highway, the movie and its star could have avoided a blowout. Need for Speed even bows to its influences with a nice opening homage to Bullit (1968), one of the most iconic car chases in film history. Unfortunately it soon proceeds a wholesale theft of ideas from decades of other, better car movies (the chained axle cop car from American Graffiti, the evangelical radio DJ from Vanishing Point (with Micheal Keaton, really???), the cross country deadlines and scenery), makes NFS a movie that knows at heart it's unworthy of the legacy, with precious few miles per gallon to show for all the noxious rubber it burns.
4 Refueling with the Car running is a fire hazard guys, especially while going 110 on a highway out of 10 (BAD)
Robocop (2014)
Robocop (PG-13) - Review
"Go Robo! (And Don't Come Back)"
A police officer wounded in the line of duty is given a second chance at his would-be killers when a large corporation cybernetically resurrects him for their own ends in this room-temperatured remake of Paul Verhoeven's 1986 cyber-grind classic.
Robocop has been drearily updated for our extremely near future, a world of faddy touchscreens and hand swiping stolen directly from our current News Cycle along with glowing cell phones, politically motivated News Hosts and gerrymandering Big Business. Basically the film didn't look so much to the possible future as to last years headlines, leaving us with a future so bereft of SciFi ideas and ideals that it speaks volumes to the design and creation of this film. The script is so shallow in scope that it predetermines nothing not already discussed on yesteryear's internet message boards.
There is a little that works. A dig at Asia's near-monopoly/slavetrade of techjobs works with depth while remaining understated; no one in the film bats an eye that Murphy must be sent to the China to be constructed into Robocop just like a new iteration of an iPhone, a fun and interesting departure from the original's Detroit-centric motorcity-construction. Micheal Keaton's OCP CEO runs his corporation more like a driven inventor "take no prisoners" type like Apple's Steve Jobs, surrounded by market research and yes men (very unlike the self-cannibalizing piranahs from the original). Yet Robocop's remaining husk of a great story has been stripped of its grand linking components in the name of change just for change's sake.
Nearly everything has been shifted from the hard hitting original, most likely in the great law of the remake, the requirement to separate oneself from the source material. Somehow Detroit is said to be a crime-ridden slum yet all we see are sunny clean streets and expensive suburbs bereft of crime. Emphasis has gone away from stellar action, shocking gore, black comedy and likeable characters of all creeds. This new film instead focuses on teary eyed family issues, puts a stungun in its hero's hand in the name of a PG13 rating, provides its gore shocks only from amputees and body horror, provides zero humor or characterization to its players, and its political messages are overlong and simplistic in its views of both America and its Corporations.
While Verhoeven's original 80's film could never be praised for its subtlety it never the less operates like a well oiled machine in comparison to the remake's clunky machinations. While one deftly lampooned both the mass media and the political/Capitalistic society of it's decade (while still maintaining entertainment value for all audiences), this new film can only ruin its own action by holding onto straight faced stoicism while spoiling any valid political criticism it has generated by allowing Sam "My Own Cliche" Jackson to basically scream into the camera "THIS MOVIE IS ABOUT MOTHER F*BLEEP*ING OBAMA'S DRONES" just in case anyone in the audience had missed the filmmakers big point (we got it, thanks). And how can a title that features the words ROBO and COP end up so drearily boring? When you focus on the ROBO and not the COP, thats when.
4.5 Why Did They Leave The Hand? out of 10 (BAD)
"Go Robo! (And Don't Come Back)"
A police officer wounded in the line of duty is given a second chance at his would-be killers when a large corporation cybernetically resurrects him for their own ends in this room-temperatured remake of Paul Verhoeven's 1986 cyber-grind classic.
Robocop has been drearily updated for our extremely near future, a world of faddy touchscreens and hand swiping stolen directly from our current News Cycle along with glowing cell phones, politically motivated News Hosts and gerrymandering Big Business. Basically the film didn't look so much to the possible future as to last years headlines, leaving us with a future so bereft of SciFi ideas and ideals that it speaks volumes to the design and creation of this film. The script is so shallow in scope that it predetermines nothing not already discussed on yesteryear's internet message boards.
There is a little that works. A dig at Asia's near-monopoly/slavetrade of techjobs works with depth while remaining understated; no one in the film bats an eye that Murphy must be sent to the China to be constructed into Robocop just like a new iteration of an iPhone, a fun and interesting departure from the original's Detroit-centric motorcity-construction. Micheal Keaton's OCP CEO runs his corporation more like a driven inventor "take no prisoners" type like Apple's Steve Jobs, surrounded by market research and yes men (very unlike the self-cannibalizing piranahs from the original). Yet Robocop's remaining husk of a great story has been stripped of its grand linking components in the name of change just for change's sake.
Nearly everything has been shifted from the hard hitting original, most likely in the great law of the remake, the requirement to separate oneself from the source material. Somehow Detroit is said to be a crime-ridden slum yet all we see are sunny clean streets and expensive suburbs bereft of crime. Emphasis has gone away from stellar action, shocking gore, black comedy and likeable characters of all creeds. This new film instead focuses on teary eyed family issues, puts a stungun in its hero's hand in the name of a PG13 rating, provides its gore shocks only from amputees and body horror, provides zero humor or characterization to its players, and its political messages are overlong and simplistic in its views of both America and its Corporations.
While Verhoeven's original 80's film could never be praised for its subtlety it never the less operates like a well oiled machine in comparison to the remake's clunky machinations. While one deftly lampooned both the mass media and the political/Capitalistic society of it's decade (while still maintaining entertainment value for all audiences), this new film can only ruin its own action by holding onto straight faced stoicism while spoiling any valid political criticism it has generated by allowing Sam "My Own Cliche" Jackson to basically scream into the camera "THIS MOVIE IS ABOUT MOTHER F*BLEEP*ING OBAMA'S DRONES" just in case anyone in the audience had missed the filmmakers big point (we got it, thanks). And how can a title that features the words ROBO and COP end up so drearily boring? When you focus on the ROBO and not the COP, thats when.
4.5 Why Did They Leave The Hand? out of 10 (BAD)
Muppets Most Wanted (2014)
Muppets Most Wanted (PG)
"Beat A Dead Felt Horse"
Coming off the highs of 2011 surprise hit Muppets (even winning an Oscar for best Song), Disney fumbles the dingy felt ball in this cash grab without a heart. Unable to get Jason Seagal to return as star or writer, Disney and Co. instead decide to recycle the plot from older Muppet films (even plot points from the previous film by replacing key Muppet members with imposters), adding a huge dash of anti-Russian stereotypes with terrible European accents, bigger and less tuneful dance numbers without the meaningful camaraderie and improv that improved so many mediocre Muppet films leaves Most Wanted in the Least Wanted Sequel pile.
Filled with modern stars (though mostly of the b or tv famous variety), the plot is a caper through Europe that does have quite a lot of nostalgia for the old Muppet TV show. However most of those original performers have moved on and it hurts, and the entire production reeks of Suit interference and barrel scraping for the benefit of money. MMW is an empty sockpuppet without a fuzzy heart beat to really bring it to life. It's a soulless cashgrab of capitalism, a death-of-brand trap that Henson's workshop (with all it's success and failures) at least never stepped paw into.
4 Even Gonzo And Rizzo Were Cut Out out of 10 (BAD)
"Beat A Dead Felt Horse"
Coming off the highs of 2011 surprise hit Muppets (even winning an Oscar for best Song), Disney fumbles the dingy felt ball in this cash grab without a heart. Unable to get Jason Seagal to return as star or writer, Disney and Co. instead decide to recycle the plot from older Muppet films (even plot points from the previous film by replacing key Muppet members with imposters), adding a huge dash of anti-Russian stereotypes with terrible European accents, bigger and less tuneful dance numbers without the meaningful camaraderie and improv that improved so many mediocre Muppet films leaves Most Wanted in the Least Wanted Sequel pile.
Filled with modern stars (though mostly of the b or tv famous variety), the plot is a caper through Europe that does have quite a lot of nostalgia for the old Muppet TV show. However most of those original performers have moved on and it hurts, and the entire production reeks of Suit interference and barrel scraping for the benefit of money. MMW is an empty sockpuppet without a fuzzy heart beat to really bring it to life. It's a soulless cashgrab of capitalism, a death-of-brand trap that Henson's workshop (with all it's success and failures) at least never stepped paw into.
4 Even Gonzo And Rizzo Were Cut Out out of 10 (BAD)
The Lords of Salem (2013)
The Lords of Salem (R) - Review
Rob Zombie returns to the director's chair after a successful run as the Halloween franchise's reinventor with a supposed original creation. Unfortunately he cast the lead as his wife Sherri Moon Zombie, who must slowly walk through a dim retelling of Rosemary's Baby by an undead Kubrick clone. Stanley K's "The Shining" mesmerised with shots of hotel hallways, inanimate objects became frightening through shot selection and background music. Zombie tries hard to replicate the magic in The Shining, but is instead treading awfully close to plagiarism rather than perhaps intended homage. The story too, being a gothic-emo-rocknroll retelling of Polanski's Rosemary Baby with pieces of Friedkin's The Exorcist, The Lords of Salem ends up a mash-up potpourri of 1970s Horror Classics with a 1990's Rock Star aesthetic that starts off well enough in the first act but soon just merely goes through the cliches and culminates in a ending whimper that confuses with its sameness.
Rob Zombie obviously wants to be the Tarantino of Horror, but he's sadly without the script writing skill or ability to reinvent rather than reiterate. Sherri's acting (despite the white girl dreadlocked hairdo) is surprisingly passable, although one gets the feeling her performance was constructed in the editing room, the amateurish portions carefully trimmed around. What is surprising was some of the truly surreal and beautiful imagery of the dream sequences that were without fail ruined by terrible practical special effects. Lots of rubber masks, rubber midget suits, rubber tentacles, obvious makeup or puppets, things better left in the VHS hell of the 80s Horror FX. I would never pine for CGI over practical but every effect in LOS looks cheap and terible on film.
With some good veteran actors and a quite good act one, Lords of Salem ends up wasting everyone's time with depressingly derivative story telling and laughably bad special effects. The Art house feel Zombie tried so hard to achieve becomes a nightmare of his own making, showcasing his vast shortcomings as a filmmaker and auteur-to-be.
"The *yawn* Lords of Stale-m"
A female Radio DJ receives a mysterious record that upon playing brings her own personal demons and other evil forces to once again plague her and the citizens of Salem, Massachusetts with witchcraft and Satan worship.
A female Radio DJ receives a mysterious record that upon playing brings her own personal demons and other evil forces to once again plague her and the citizens of Salem, Massachusetts with witchcraft and Satan worship.
Rob Zombie returns to the director's chair after a successful run as the Halloween franchise's reinventor with a supposed original creation. Unfortunately he cast the lead as his wife Sherri Moon Zombie, who must slowly walk through a dim retelling of Rosemary's Baby by an undead Kubrick clone. Stanley K's "The Shining" mesmerised with shots of hotel hallways, inanimate objects became frightening through shot selection and background music. Zombie tries hard to replicate the magic in The Shining, but is instead treading awfully close to plagiarism rather than perhaps intended homage. The story too, being a gothic-emo-rocknroll retelling of Polanski's Rosemary Baby with pieces of Friedkin's The Exorcist, The Lords of Salem ends up a mash-up potpourri of 1970s Horror Classics with a 1990's Rock Star aesthetic that starts off well enough in the first act but soon just merely goes through the cliches and culminates in a ending whimper that confuses with its sameness.
Rob Zombie obviously wants to be the Tarantino of Horror, but he's sadly without the script writing skill or ability to reinvent rather than reiterate. Sherri's acting (despite the white girl dreadlocked hairdo) is surprisingly passable, although one gets the feeling her performance was constructed in the editing room, the amateurish portions carefully trimmed around. What is surprising was some of the truly surreal and beautiful imagery of the dream sequences that were without fail ruined by terrible practical special effects. Lots of rubber masks, rubber midget suits, rubber tentacles, obvious makeup or puppets, things better left in the VHS hell of the 80s Horror FX. I would never pine for CGI over practical but every effect in LOS looks cheap and terible on film.
With some good veteran actors and a quite good act one, Lords of Salem ends up wasting everyone's time with depressingly derivative story telling and laughably bad special effects. The Art house feel Zombie tried so hard to achieve becomes a nightmare of his own making, showcasing his vast shortcomings as a filmmaker and auteur-to-be.
3.5 Anti-Mary's out of 10 (BAD)
Elysium (2013)
Elysium (PG-13) - Review
"More Cyber-Junk than Cyber-Punk"
Not content with the Racial equality parable of District 9, director Neill Blomkamp turns his sites on Mexican-American immigration reform for this overwhelmingly underwhelming SciFi snoozer starring Mat Damon as Max, a misunderstood misanthrope in a brown man's world with only days to live and interplanetary habitats to reach and get magically healed by.
Blomkamp sticks with the bluecollar ethos that made D9 so successful, albeit this time with a Hollywood megastar and a bunch of thinly veiled stabs at US foreign policy, immigration policy, Blackwater soldiering and corporational politics. You see everyone up in the Orbital station known as Elysium gets free unlimited magical health care pods (wasn't that also in Prometheus, and what the GOP doesn't want?), and only the richest get to buy a ticket to live there. Everyone on Earth lives and works and gets cancer in Big Mexico (whats left of SoCal), the Elysium people just send down robots and shuttle pods to keep the Have Nots under control. Then comes Max, a former car thief now reformed factory worker who dreams of one day taking the ride up to Elysium but when Max gets filled with radiation at work due to workplace neglicence (Workman's comp apparently also is only available on Elysium) he must now reach the station and maybe change the situations of millions of his Earthbound brethern.
Every on Earth speaks Spanish and English, while everyone in orbit speaks English and French and attends lawn parties all day and don't work. How this economy is sustained, what is the basis of law and order and the constitution, why humans (rich and poor) would totally submit to robotic computer control that can be changed with a couple of lines of C++ are all questions that go unanswered in Elysium. The film is a very thin premise stretched to only an hour and a half, with no big action movie payoffs to stave off the eye rolling shmaltz. Jodie Foster retains the current Queen of SciFi status with her role as Space Margret Thatcher, who explodes refugee boats with impunity and will implement a coup if anyone argues with her strangely over acted weirdly dubbed space accent. She hires Kruger (Sharlto Copley, the hero of District 9) as her blackops monster, and his miscasting in the role is just outright terrible. Sharlto's bad guy wears a exoskeleton, wears fur blankets, sneers and bumbles along waving a samurai sword in the worst kind of SyFy Tv special cliche (use a gun jack hole!). It's not his fault, its the script, written by Blomkamp, which is such a drastic reversal from District 9's hopeful breakout. The story is so filled with holes (like the Spider character however), so many wretchedly nauseating flash backs to the golden years of youth, so many "why would he do that, why would that happen" moments, so much promise of Cyber-punk body modification and human/computer scientific theory so mishandled and without gravitas it feels the scriptwriter doesn't even understand the basics of the genre and also so without the clear clean visuals of D9 that are instead replaced with a shaky action cam so shoddy as to make the late great Tony Scott snort in derision. Mostly the script is so narrow minded, it so sorely lacks a large enough scope, the film's promise so sadly unfulfilled and the entire film such a large step down from his fresh faced freshman film that Blomkamp's Elysium appears to have made the Sophomore mistake of waking up late with a face full of zits, not combing it's hair and blinking for its school picture in comparison (don't expect a nomination for best dressed or most likely to succeed for either of them).
3 Did I Really Believe Lockout's SciFi More? out of 10 (BAD)
"More Cyber-Junk than Cyber-Punk"
Not content with the Racial equality parable of District 9, director Neill Blomkamp turns his sites on Mexican-American immigration reform for this overwhelmingly underwhelming SciFi snoozer starring Mat Damon as Max, a misunderstood misanthrope in a brown man's world with only days to live and interplanetary habitats to reach and get magically healed by.
Blomkamp sticks with the bluecollar ethos that made D9 so successful, albeit this time with a Hollywood megastar and a bunch of thinly veiled stabs at US foreign policy, immigration policy, Blackwater soldiering and corporational politics. You see everyone up in the Orbital station known as Elysium gets free unlimited magical health care pods (wasn't that also in Prometheus, and what the GOP doesn't want?), and only the richest get to buy a ticket to live there. Everyone on Earth lives and works and gets cancer in Big Mexico (whats left of SoCal), the Elysium people just send down robots and shuttle pods to keep the Have Nots under control. Then comes Max, a former car thief now reformed factory worker who dreams of one day taking the ride up to Elysium but when Max gets filled with radiation at work due to workplace neglicence (Workman's comp apparently also is only available on Elysium) he must now reach the station and maybe change the situations of millions of his Earthbound brethern.
Every on Earth speaks Spanish and English, while everyone in orbit speaks English and French and attends lawn parties all day and don't work. How this economy is sustained, what is the basis of law and order and the constitution, why humans (rich and poor) would totally submit to robotic computer control that can be changed with a couple of lines of C++ are all questions that go unanswered in Elysium. The film is a very thin premise stretched to only an hour and a half, with no big action movie payoffs to stave off the eye rolling shmaltz. Jodie Foster retains the current Queen of SciFi status with her role as Space Margret Thatcher, who explodes refugee boats with impunity and will implement a coup if anyone argues with her strangely over acted weirdly dubbed space accent. She hires Kruger (Sharlto Copley, the hero of District 9) as her blackops monster, and his miscasting in the role is just outright terrible. Sharlto's bad guy wears a exoskeleton, wears fur blankets, sneers and bumbles along waving a samurai sword in the worst kind of SyFy Tv special cliche (use a gun jack hole!). It's not his fault, its the script, written by Blomkamp, which is such a drastic reversal from District 9's hopeful breakout. The story is so filled with holes (like the Spider character however), so many wretchedly nauseating flash backs to the golden years of youth, so many "why would he do that, why would that happen" moments, so much promise of Cyber-punk body modification and human/computer scientific theory so mishandled and without gravitas it feels the scriptwriter doesn't even understand the basics of the genre and also so without the clear clean visuals of D9 that are instead replaced with a shaky action cam so shoddy as to make the late great Tony Scott snort in derision. Mostly the script is so narrow minded, it so sorely lacks a large enough scope, the film's promise so sadly unfulfilled and the entire film such a large step down from his fresh faced freshman film that Blomkamp's Elysium appears to have made the Sophomore mistake of waking up late with a face full of zits, not combing it's hair and blinking for its school picture in comparison (don't expect a nomination for best dressed or most likely to succeed for either of them).
3 Did I Really Believe Lockout's SciFi More? out of 10 (BAD)
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (PG-13)
"Sequel fails to deliver, news at 11"
The Action News Team returns to the dawning of the 80s in this unwise sequel to the strange comedy gold that was the sexy sexist 70s. This time they are joining a new 24hour cycle cable-news network, and Ron finds almost immediate success as an empty-air anchor, doing light breezy humanitarian stories that fill up the hours. Unfortunately the jokes and off-the-cuff humor isn't as successful. Whole plot lines feel like last-minute brain-storms (Ron is racist at dinner, Ron goes blind, Ron works at Seaworld!), and if the jokes landed we'd be more ok with that. The sequel feels more like Ron's solo movie than the comedy team work that was a well-oiled, very odd comedy gold machine last flick. Brick (Steve Carrell) gets a girlfriend, but Champ and Brian are both sidelined. Starts off funny but it soon fades, has very little of the lunatic creativity of the original, put down the scotch and change the channel.
4 Thrown Burritos out of 10 (BAD)
"Sequel fails to deliver, news at 11"
The Action News Team returns to the dawning of the 80s in this unwise sequel to the strange comedy gold that was the sexy sexist 70s. This time they are joining a new 24hour cycle cable-news network, and Ron finds almost immediate success as an empty-air anchor, doing light breezy humanitarian stories that fill up the hours. Unfortunately the jokes and off-the-cuff humor isn't as successful. Whole plot lines feel like last-minute brain-storms (Ron is racist at dinner, Ron goes blind, Ron works at Seaworld!), and if the jokes landed we'd be more ok with that. The sequel feels more like Ron's solo movie than the comedy team work that was a well-oiled, very odd comedy gold machine last flick. Brick (Steve Carrell) gets a girlfriend, but Champ and Brian are both sidelined. Starts off funny but it soon fades, has very little of the lunatic creativity of the original, put down the scotch and change the channel.
4 Thrown Burritos out of 10 (BAD)
Riddick (2013)
Riddick (R)
"Get Rid-of-it"
The Nightvisioned anti-hero is back in his third film which feels less like a "return to roots" as a tepid remake of the first film. Riddick (Vin Diesel) loses his space kingship from Chronicles in the prologue and finds himself stranded on a desolate planet with ferocious wildlife. Riddick can apparently can do anything now, and does as he trains a saberdog and avoids the rad-scorpions. When a rag tag crew of mercs and a specially trained squad of bounty hunters land and begin pursuing Riddick, he must use every trick and tactic for survival that he knows (and apparently wrote the book on ie "Impervious Planet Living"). 3rd film is smaller in scope and more predictable than the last, the space-opera fantasy all but forgotten for grim Riddick and his grunting manliness to take lone center stage and coast his way through bloody waves of human and alien adversaries, swaggering at his impossible deeds like a Bud-Light drunk who drove home safely from Oktoberfest.
3.5 At least the first one had that rocketship crash out of 10 (BAD)
"Get Rid-of-it"
The Nightvisioned anti-hero is back in his third film which feels less like a "return to roots" as a tepid remake of the first film. Riddick (Vin Diesel) loses his space kingship from Chronicles in the prologue and finds himself stranded on a desolate planet with ferocious wildlife. Riddick can apparently can do anything now, and does as he trains a saberdog and avoids the rad-scorpions. When a rag tag crew of mercs and a specially trained squad of bounty hunters land and begin pursuing Riddick, he must use every trick and tactic for survival that he knows (and apparently wrote the book on ie "Impervious Planet Living"). 3rd film is smaller in scope and more predictable than the last, the space-opera fantasy all but forgotten for grim Riddick and his grunting manliness to take lone center stage and coast his way through bloody waves of human and alien adversaries, swaggering at his impossible deeds like a Bud-Light drunk who drove home safely from Oktoberfest.
3.5 At least the first one had that rocketship crash out of 10 (BAD)
The Great Gatsby (2013)
The Great Gatsby (PG-13)
"Party Hardly"
Still struggling to find another monster hit after a decade following "Moulin Rouge," Australian eccentric Director extraordinaire Baz Lurhmann sets his sites on the great American novel standard The Great Gatsby and generates a film that would have cost Gatsby his great bootlegging fortune, leaving him penniless and heartbroken yet again.
Leo DiCaprio (The Departed) stars as Gatsby, and is perfect in the role as a wealthy mystery man with a savoir fair for parties. He is partnered with Spider-Man's Tobey McGuire as his doe-eyed neighbor Nick, who gains his friendship and cupid's wings regarding his past love (Carey Mulligan). The story is well known, but the roaring 20s are brought to life by stupendous costuming and overzealous set design, while the movie falls flat on its straw hat as the jazz gives way to hip-hop rap stars and becomes overladen with CGI whizbang camera moves. The whole endeavor is devoid of an actual soul, which is particularity troubling considering Fitzgerald's much beloved book is brimming with it and foretells a future where riches and wealth might preclude class and upbringing in society, much like Baz's film becomes completely three-upped by Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street (also starring Leo, speaking to American greed and released the same year). Wolf makes its point with a bigger bang than Gatsby's model T, which goes out with an odorous backfire.
3 Dimensions, I'll stick with 2 out of 10 (BAD)
"Party Hardly"
Still struggling to find another monster hit after a decade following "Moulin Rouge," Australian eccentric Director extraordinaire Baz Lurhmann sets his sites on the great American novel standard The Great Gatsby and generates a film that would have cost Gatsby his great bootlegging fortune, leaving him penniless and heartbroken yet again.
Leo DiCaprio (The Departed) stars as Gatsby, and is perfect in the role as a wealthy mystery man with a savoir fair for parties. He is partnered with Spider-Man's Tobey McGuire as his doe-eyed neighbor Nick, who gains his friendship and cupid's wings regarding his past love (Carey Mulligan). The story is well known, but the roaring 20s are brought to life by stupendous costuming and overzealous set design, while the movie falls flat on its straw hat as the jazz gives way to hip-hop rap stars and becomes overladen with CGI whizbang camera moves. The whole endeavor is devoid of an actual soul, which is particularity troubling considering Fitzgerald's much beloved book is brimming with it and foretells a future where riches and wealth might preclude class and upbringing in society, much like Baz's film becomes completely three-upped by Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street (also starring Leo, speaking to American greed and released the same year). Wolf makes its point with a bigger bang than Gatsby's model T, which goes out with an odorous backfire.
3 Dimensions, I'll stick with 2 out of 10 (BAD)
World War Z (2013)
World War Z (PG-13)
"Product Placement 'Pocalypse"
A blight was released upon the Earth in 2013, and its name was World War Z. Produced and starring Brad Pitt (Fight Club) as a former UN investigator who is drawn into a worldwide crisis involving the undead after his family's near escape in Philadelphia, the movie tries to differentiate itself from the modern Zombie zietgiest by maintaining a wimpy audience friendly PG13 rating and mass pop culture appeal instead of true horror epic the novel's street cred lent it. Based loosely on the novel by Max Brooks, the similarities almost end at the title. Instead of Brook's use of traditional slow moving Z's of the "They're coming to get you, Barbara" variety and their practical strengths and weaknesses, the movie has screeching/sprinting snappers whose nearly invincible CGI avatars and insect like behaviors are a simple mechanic to shriek from one action location to the next (said action being well done and tense when not weighed down by the plot's clammy grasping hands of stupidity and unrealism).
The lip service spent on Brooks World War Z is very brief: Yes Zombies outbreak taking over entire continents, Yes they originated in Asia and spread by planes, Yes humans must find unique techniques to protect themselves and fight off the menace (if only in the films last few minutes however). Instead the longer exclamation made by the film is "How cool is Brad Pitt huh?": He rescues his shrill wife and cardboard children from danger without ever losing his cool as a cucumber dadhood, travels around the world investigating razor thin evidences that only he is intelligent enough to notice, survives the ransacking of a well prepared Jerusalem (in direct conflict with the written material by the way) and survives an impossible plane crash which he causes. It's a milky eye rolling affair, all the more horrifying in that the entire 3rd act of the film (and actual Zombie conflict) being scrapped in favor of a multimillion dollar reshoot to end the movie's thrid act with even more Pitt heroics and family friendly PG13 censorship. Instead of focusing on the titular war supposedly raging around it, the film's plausibility takes a screeching 90 degree dive for the mainstream, changing the ending into a pointless hide and seek in a cheap looking WHO lab filled with the undead as Pitt single-handedly searches for the Zombie's only weakness, finds it, exploits it ANNNND roll final weak exposition and end credits!
The serious lack of gory violence or brutality alone is a huge gaping plothole for WWZ, as is the disrespect for the decently thought out source material and obvious use of a pretty boy superstar to panhandle for larger box office returns. Whether Zombie cultists, Book aficionados or Horror film fans will also return seems less likely as it's own inevitable sequel.
4 Wish Bub were here to pop a cap in Pitt out of 10 (BAD)
"Product Placement 'Pocalypse"
A blight was released upon the Earth in 2013, and its name was World War Z. Produced and starring Brad Pitt (Fight Club) as a former UN investigator who is drawn into a worldwide crisis involving the undead after his family's near escape in Philadelphia, the movie tries to differentiate itself from the modern Zombie zietgiest by maintaining a wimpy audience friendly PG13 rating and mass pop culture appeal instead of true horror epic the novel's street cred lent it. Based loosely on the novel by Max Brooks, the similarities almost end at the title. Instead of Brook's use of traditional slow moving Z's of the "They're coming to get you, Barbara" variety and their practical strengths and weaknesses, the movie has screeching/sprinting snappers whose nearly invincible CGI avatars and insect like behaviors are a simple mechanic to shriek from one action location to the next (said action being well done and tense when not weighed down by the plot's clammy grasping hands of stupidity and unrealism).
The lip service spent on Brooks World War Z is very brief: Yes Zombies outbreak taking over entire continents, Yes they originated in Asia and spread by planes, Yes humans must find unique techniques to protect themselves and fight off the menace (if only in the films last few minutes however). Instead the longer exclamation made by the film is "How cool is Brad Pitt huh?": He rescues his shrill wife and cardboard children from danger without ever losing his cool as a cucumber dadhood, travels around the world investigating razor thin evidences that only he is intelligent enough to notice, survives the ransacking of a well prepared Jerusalem (in direct conflict with the written material by the way) and survives an impossible plane crash which he causes. It's a milky eye rolling affair, all the more horrifying in that the entire 3rd act of the film (and actual Zombie conflict) being scrapped in favor of a multimillion dollar reshoot to end the movie's thrid act with even more Pitt heroics and family friendly PG13 censorship. Instead of focusing on the titular war supposedly raging around it, the film's plausibility takes a screeching 90 degree dive for the mainstream, changing the ending into a pointless hide and seek in a cheap looking WHO lab filled with the undead as Pitt single-handedly searches for the Zombie's only weakness, finds it, exploits it ANNNND roll final weak exposition and end credits!
The serious lack of gory violence or brutality alone is a huge gaping plothole for WWZ, as is the disrespect for the decently thought out source material and obvious use of a pretty boy superstar to panhandle for larger box office returns. Whether Zombie cultists, Book aficionados or Horror film fans will also return seems less likely as it's own inevitable sequel.
4 Wish Bub were here to pop a cap in Pitt out of 10 (BAD)
Pacific Rim (2013)
Pacific Rim (PG-13) - Review
"Kaiju Shmaiju"
Giant alien monsters have surfaced from the ocean, wrecking cities all along the Pacific coast. Humanity must collaborate and develop enormous robots dubbed "Jaegers" to combat them... mostly by punching and throwing each other's candy colored CGI constructs around the ocean. Kaiju vs Jaegers is apparently director Guillermo DelTorro's inner-fanboy wet dream, but the production design is as chintzy as the script. The battles are infrequent and without truth or weight, the multicultural pilot pals are scripted to be riddled with cliched stereotypes while the actors doing the lines come off either hammy or amateurish. The bewildering pseudoscience subplot is jib-jabbering at its worst that consistently sabotages any forward momentum in the film (i.e. the highlight of Charlie Day's scientist is buried by his interaction with ham extraordinaire Ron Perlman). It looks like the most expensive CW pilot ever conceived, filled with skittle-colored lights and closeups of "EMOTIONAL ACTING" or junky fake robot visuals. If there was any chance of a 3rd act turn-around it is scuttled by a supposed last-ditch inspirational speech that is absurdly terrible. And do the filmmakers understand the final battle is underwater, and the physics are different there? It all feels completely arbitrary, in a fan-fiction "because I wrote it that way since that will look the coolest" kind of way, ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that this mish-mash ripoff of better ideas from better sources falls on it's shiny metal ass, often and early.
2.5 "End the HA-HApocalypse" out of 10 (BAD)
"Kaiju Shmaiju"
Giant alien monsters have surfaced from the ocean, wrecking cities all along the Pacific coast. Humanity must collaborate and develop enormous robots dubbed "Jaegers" to combat them... mostly by punching and throwing each other's candy colored CGI constructs around the ocean. Kaiju vs Jaegers is apparently director Guillermo DelTorro's inner-fanboy wet dream, but the production design is as chintzy as the script. The battles are infrequent and without truth or weight, the multicultural pilot pals are scripted to be riddled with cliched stereotypes while the actors doing the lines come off either hammy or amateurish. The bewildering pseudoscience subplot is jib-jabbering at its worst that consistently sabotages any forward momentum in the film (i.e. the highlight of Charlie Day's scientist is buried by his interaction with ham extraordinaire Ron Perlman). It looks like the most expensive CW pilot ever conceived, filled with skittle-colored lights and closeups of "EMOTIONAL ACTING" or junky fake robot visuals. If there was any chance of a 3rd act turn-around it is scuttled by a supposed last-ditch inspirational speech that is absurdly terrible. And do the filmmakers understand the final battle is underwater, and the physics are different there? It all feels completely arbitrary, in a fan-fiction "because I wrote it that way since that will look the coolest" kind of way, ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that this mish-mash ripoff of better ideas from better sources falls on it's shiny metal ass, often and early.
2.5 "End the HA-HApocalypse" out of 10 (BAD)
Captain Phillips (2013)
Captain Phillips (PG-13) - Review
"I am the Captain, now."
Tom Hanks stars as the Captain whose cargo vessel is attacked by Somali pirates. Presented as Historical fiction, this formally dramatic CNN-bait is padded out to feature length proportions and the stretch marks are livid. It starts off strong, contrasting Captain Phillips' work life and worries of competition with that of the Somalian captain's desperate life on the edge, played authentically by Barkhad Abdi. But after the strong start the film bogs down in iffy historical details and heroification that is totally white-washed for an American audience. To the down playing of the Seal Teams incredible shooting to the 3 dead Somalis who never got a chance to be characterized as anything but cliches. Actual political ramifications are avoided completely, as are the real-life crew's claims of events; the mishandling of security by the titular Captain and his supposed non-heroics. Cinematography, pace and production design all falter to make an impression beyond "Look at Captain Phillips problems!", when audeinces may be left scratching their heads why so much fuss is made over the man.
And what is the film trying to say anyway? It fails to tread the line between compassion for the plight of the 3rd world and the caustic exploitation and indifference to their deaths by the mainstream. The point? All signs seem to point to "At least the successful, Caucasian American Citizen survived," which as far as movie plots go its about as tone-deaf as Oscar nominees get.
4.5 Dead Kennedys so sarcastically put it "All systems GO to Kill the Poor Tonight!" out of 10 (BAD)
"I am the Captain, now."
Tom Hanks stars as the Captain whose cargo vessel is attacked by Somali pirates. Presented as Historical fiction, this formally dramatic CNN-bait is padded out to feature length proportions and the stretch marks are livid. It starts off strong, contrasting Captain Phillips' work life and worries of competition with that of the Somalian captain's desperate life on the edge, played authentically by Barkhad Abdi. But after the strong start the film bogs down in iffy historical details and heroification that is totally white-washed for an American audience. To the down playing of the Seal Teams incredible shooting to the 3 dead Somalis who never got a chance to be characterized as anything but cliches. Actual political ramifications are avoided completely, as are the real-life crew's claims of events; the mishandling of security by the titular Captain and his supposed non-heroics. Cinematography, pace and production design all falter to make an impression beyond "Look at Captain Phillips problems!", when audeinces may be left scratching their heads why so much fuss is made over the man.
And what is the film trying to say anyway? It fails to tread the line between compassion for the plight of the 3rd world and the caustic exploitation and indifference to their deaths by the mainstream. The point? All signs seem to point to "At least the successful, Caucasian American Citizen survived," which as far as movie plots go its about as tone-deaf as Oscar nominees get.
4.5 Dead Kennedys so sarcastically put it "All systems GO to Kill the Poor Tonight!" out of 10 (BAD)
The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (PG13)
"Pork Barrel Rider"
Peter Jackson's prevalence to excess completely decapitates this second tale in the forced Hobbit Trilogy, as Bilbo Baggins and his Dwarven employers must brave talking spiders, scheming humans, CGI Dragons and interfranchisal reference synergy as this wholly unnecessary and overlong bloat-fest comes spilling from the pens of the filmmakers..
Woe to the fan who thought the first film was "close enough" to the original story to give it a passing grade. Your investment has paid off in even longer stretches of the iffy material from the first film instead of continued dedication to the source material. Long protracted action sequences that bounce from CG set to CG set and rubbery cartoon physics. Wholly invented dialogue, ruined characters and added scenarios that the heirs of the JRR Tolkien estate must be choking on like dogs with a particularly festering bone. Flat, ugly and obvious CGI that makes one tear up at the thought of the solid, feral worlds that were generated in the LOTR trilogy. It smacks of an egoist's cash grab powered by a greedy studio system looking for the bigger ROI (like ROTK). The changes to the story domino, one upon the other, creating even more changes and more differences, severing the tale completely from its beloved novel.
Some will say detractors are making mountains out of molehills, that the increase in action and romantic subplots beyond the source material is directly relative to the higher critical scores and audience reactions. To that we say the lonely mountain is the entire point, and this movie proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that The Hobbit could have been just 2 movies, directly lifted from the novel of the same name and with all source material beautifully referenced (just like the LOTR trilogy before it). Instead this movie is all filler and fluff with a reluctant grasp on Tolkien at best. A fanfiction writer's dream, and a fever nightmare for believers in what could have been.
4 Female Dwarves with Beards out of 10 (BAD)
"Pork Barrel Rider"
Peter Jackson's prevalence to excess completely decapitates this second tale in the forced Hobbit Trilogy, as Bilbo Baggins and his Dwarven employers must brave talking spiders, scheming humans, CGI Dragons and interfranchisal reference synergy as this wholly unnecessary and overlong bloat-fest comes spilling from the pens of the filmmakers..
Woe to the fan who thought the first film was "close enough" to the original story to give it a passing grade. Your investment has paid off in even longer stretches of the iffy material from the first film instead of continued dedication to the source material. Long protracted action sequences that bounce from CG set to CG set and rubbery cartoon physics. Wholly invented dialogue, ruined characters and added scenarios that the heirs of the JRR Tolkien estate must be choking on like dogs with a particularly festering bone. Flat, ugly and obvious CGI that makes one tear up at the thought of the solid, feral worlds that were generated in the LOTR trilogy. It smacks of an egoist's cash grab powered by a greedy studio system looking for the bigger ROI (like ROTK). The changes to the story domino, one upon the other, creating even more changes and more differences, severing the tale completely from its beloved novel.
Some will say detractors are making mountains out of molehills, that the increase in action and romantic subplots beyond the source material is directly relative to the higher critical scores and audience reactions. To that we say the lonely mountain is the entire point, and this movie proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that The Hobbit could have been just 2 movies, directly lifted from the novel of the same name and with all source material beautifully referenced (just like the LOTR trilogy before it). Instead this movie is all filler and fluff with a reluctant grasp on Tolkien at best. A fanfiction writer's dream, and a fever nightmare for believers in what could have been.
4 Female Dwarves with Beards out of 10 (BAD)
Evil Dead (2013)
Evil Dead (R) - Review
"JOIN US... (but why?)"
5 young people are trapped in a rural cabin, an evil book has unleashed demonic forces which possess them one by one, leading to dismemberment and torture as the evil spreads. The reformulated plot from the cult classic The Evil Dead (1981) ends up less than the sum of its hacked off parts. It's major failings are actually the well known cliches and conventions of the modern horror film that were so easily lampooned in last years "Cabin In The Woods" that the industry and its fans lauded and yet turned have apparently turned a blind ear to.
While maintaining a heavy torrential downpour of gore and menace, the film completely misses the point of the mindless black hearted fun the original had. Instead of a group of horny kids drinking and carousing in the woods, here the very serious youths are sexless red herrings staging an intervention for their junky female friend (and sister), which I'm sure we all can relate too (right?). So many horror movies have borrowed from the original Evil Dead over the years that when it comes back around now we are left with is a copy of a copy of a copy, suffering terrible generational loss as the standard hohum scares of modern day hollywood flicks such as in "Insidious" are shunted in to take the place of the fresh energy of low budget invention that was present in the original.
What isn't new was done better in the original (or wisely unconceived). The build up to the cabin, the admittedly small bits of characater development, the insanely manic zeal of cast and crew is isntead replaced with an unnecessary and dumb preamble, unwise half-stitched-on heroin subplot, unlikeable characters and professional visuals so muddy and dark and with a narrow depth of field that the special make up effects are often hard to see. The only thing that could have been modernized but wasn't is the sadistic level of violence against women. Even though they tried to take the sting off of it by swapping the gender role of "hero" of the film from Ash to the junky Mia, even that is a copy of other failed remakes (i.e. Night of the Living Dead 1990). The script alone has more egregious errors when compared to the first (which wasn't Shakespeare to begin with), with some baffling and truly embarrassing dialogue (science book?).
When the best bit of acting is a one-liner cameo by Bruce Campbell emoting "GROOVY." after the credits end (which is itself a not a reference or an homage but a straight up LIFT from a better movie), you have a film that is anything but. You can't just throw gore at the problems and expect it to improve, you gotta "Hail to the King" when you clutch the bloody coattails of your betters..
4 Oldsmobile Deltas out of 10 (BAD)
"JOIN US... (but why?)"
5 young people are trapped in a rural cabin, an evil book has unleashed demonic forces which possess them one by one, leading to dismemberment and torture as the evil spreads. The reformulated plot from the cult classic The Evil Dead (1981) ends up less than the sum of its hacked off parts. It's major failings are actually the well known cliches and conventions of the modern horror film that were so easily lampooned in last years "Cabin In The Woods" that the industry and its fans lauded and yet turned have apparently turned a blind ear to.
While maintaining a heavy torrential downpour of gore and menace, the film completely misses the point of the mindless black hearted fun the original had. Instead of a group of horny kids drinking and carousing in the woods, here the very serious youths are sexless red herrings staging an intervention for their junky female friend (and sister), which I'm sure we all can relate too (right?). So many horror movies have borrowed from the original Evil Dead over the years that when it comes back around now we are left with is a copy of a copy of a copy, suffering terrible generational loss as the standard hohum scares of modern day hollywood flicks such as in "Insidious" are shunted in to take the place of the fresh energy of low budget invention that was present in the original.
What isn't new was done better in the original (or wisely unconceived). The build up to the cabin, the admittedly small bits of characater development, the insanely manic zeal of cast and crew is isntead replaced with an unnecessary and dumb preamble, unwise half-stitched-on heroin subplot, unlikeable characters and professional visuals so muddy and dark and with a narrow depth of field that the special make up effects are often hard to see. The only thing that could have been modernized but wasn't is the sadistic level of violence against women. Even though they tried to take the sting off of it by swapping the gender role of "hero" of the film from Ash to the junky Mia, even that is a copy of other failed remakes (i.e. Night of the Living Dead 1990). The script alone has more egregious errors when compared to the first (which wasn't Shakespeare to begin with), with some baffling and truly embarrassing dialogue (science book?).
When the best bit of acting is a one-liner cameo by Bruce Campbell emoting "GROOVY." after the credits end (which is itself a not a reference or an homage but a straight up LIFT from a better movie), you have a film that is anything but. You can't just throw gore at the problems and expect it to improve, you gotta "Hail to the King" when you clutch the bloody coattails of your betters..
4 Oldsmobile Deltas out of 10 (BAD)
The Conjuring (2013)
The Conjuring (R)
"Paging Captain Howdy"
Sad catch-all Horror film (highest grossing all time by the way) that wants so badly to be the next Exorcist/Poltergiest/Amytiville Horror that it steals wholesale from them and brings in the kids too young to know better by the droves. Best when the effects stay practical, the Conjuring conjures nothing but familiarity (the story is so predictable that you'll be anticipating a swerve that doesn't happen, the only curve ball is nothing gets CONJURED), has an evil doll that contributes nothing but a spinoff prequel/sequels, and agnosticaly approves of the Salem Witch trials! The scares are effective but since they are skin grafts from better movies (the turn off the lights and listen trick, the look behind you NOW ITS IN FRONT trick, the oh aren't old dolls creepy trick, etc), Conjuring does a disservice to the Horror genre by regurgitating effective scenes like Linda Blair on a ipeccac diet instead of coming up with it's own unique moments. Invention in the face of critical antagonism is what elevated the horror movie from it's low 1980s VHS slasher status to it's pop-culture accepted one, yet The Conjuring may have you wishing for the bad old days of dusty Hollywood Video shelves filled with direct to video cheapies that might not have a budget but at least ONE original idea.
4 James Wan's Conjuring even steals from James Wan's Insidious out of 10 (BAD)
"Paging Captain Howdy"
Sad catch-all Horror film (highest grossing all time by the way) that wants so badly to be the next Exorcist/Poltergiest/Amytiville Horror that it steals wholesale from them and brings in the kids too young to know better by the droves. Best when the effects stay practical, the Conjuring conjures nothing but familiarity (the story is so predictable that you'll be anticipating a swerve that doesn't happen, the only curve ball is nothing gets CONJURED), has an evil doll that contributes nothing but a spinoff prequel/sequels, and agnosticaly approves of the Salem Witch trials! The scares are effective but since they are skin grafts from better movies (the turn off the lights and listen trick, the look behind you NOW ITS IN FRONT trick, the oh aren't old dolls creepy trick, etc), Conjuring does a disservice to the Horror genre by regurgitating effective scenes like Linda Blair on a ipeccac diet instead of coming up with it's own unique moments. Invention in the face of critical antagonism is what elevated the horror movie from it's low 1980s VHS slasher status to it's pop-culture accepted one, yet The Conjuring may have you wishing for the bad old days of dusty Hollywood Video shelves filled with direct to video cheapies that might not have a budget but at least ONE original idea.
4 James Wan's Conjuring even steals from James Wan's Insidious out of 10 (BAD)
Movie 43 (2013)
Movie 43 (R) - Review
"That's a lot of nuts!"
2013 is on us, and so is the meta compilation comedy movie.titled Movie 43. Its a repugnant film starring resplindant film stars. It is hip and chic to go slumming, and slumming they do in this genetalia laced 1.5 hour scat joke. The humor is subbasement with the likes of Hugh Jackman, Dennis Quaid, Greg Kinnear, Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Richard Gere and Gerard Butler as a ball obsessed leprechaun. The cast is stellar but not comedy oriented, so they spice up some of the other roles with seasoned funnymen the likes of Johnny Knoxville, Anna Faris and Larry Sanders. Each piece is a small vinget created by its own director/writer (a Farrelly brother is involved) which are tied together with the narrative of the film being sold to a Hollywood producer. Some skits can be likened to dirty SNL episodes (Batman and Robin on a date, a kid whos home schooled till insane) others to late night informercials for direct to video releases. While it did illicit a few laughs and fed a fondness for cartoon cat mayhem, the unappatizing barrage of toilet/gential/and awkward humor left a bad taste in our mouth and a stain on the carpet.
4 Tea Bags out of 10 (BAD)
"That's a lot of nuts!"
2013 is on us, and so is the meta compilation comedy movie.titled Movie 43. Its a repugnant film starring resplindant film stars. It is hip and chic to go slumming, and slumming they do in this genetalia laced 1.5 hour scat joke. The humor is subbasement with the likes of Hugh Jackman, Dennis Quaid, Greg Kinnear, Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Richard Gere and Gerard Butler as a ball obsessed leprechaun. The cast is stellar but not comedy oriented, so they spice up some of the other roles with seasoned funnymen the likes of Johnny Knoxville, Anna Faris and Larry Sanders. Each piece is a small vinget created by its own director/writer (a Farrelly brother is involved) which are tied together with the narrative of the film being sold to a Hollywood producer. Some skits can be likened to dirty SNL episodes (Batman and Robin on a date, a kid whos home schooled till insane) others to late night informercials for direct to video releases. While it did illicit a few laughs and fed a fondness for cartoon cat mayhem, the unappatizing barrage of toilet/gential/and awkward humor left a bad taste in our mouth and a stain on the carpet.
4 Tea Bags out of 10 (BAD)
To The Wonder (2012)
To The Wonder (R)
"Wonder WTF were they thinking?"
Serial genius and cinema introvert Terrance Malick (Outlands, Tree of Life) crafts another incomprehensible, inner monologue burdened film, this time without all the metaphysical musings or dinosaur cameos or tour-de-force minimalist acting. No, this time its a romance drama, a film about a strained relationship, and it stars Ben Affleck as an environmentalist with a woman problem for 2 hours. Sigh.
Not that you'll be seeing much of Ben's face, if that is a deterrent. The camera lens is always the main star of modern Malick films, and brooding Affleck or any of the characters are rarely seen talking on screen. The film is as beautiful as the rest of Terry's oeuvre, though perhaps hampered by being centered in suburban Oklahoma. The main female lead is constantly twirling twirling twirling, never can she stop spinning and you can almost forgive Affleck's indifference to a woman who is constantly flittering around like a broken humming bird who he has to chase her to show his love. Actress Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace) fills her dizzying role and speaks her tipsy french memoir laden monologue but don't ask if the acting is any good because that is not the point of this movie. It is not story driven, it is image and emotion driven, the few scant pieces of dialogue barely give enough of an impression as to what the heck is actually going on, let alone form an opinion. It is structured like an ambiguous novel where its up to you to fill in the numerous blanks. It is interesting to see a film told through almost visuals alone, especially ones crafted so well (but begs to have a half hour edited out). However Malick already did that to better effect in Tree of Life, with a more significant story and moving emotions and a REASON to exist (and somewhat less twirling and chasing).
To The Wonder feels exactly like an Alzheimer patient musing on a long past relationship, and you are struggling to understand the stream of thought that is unaware of your need for information: "Wait, slow down how did they meet? No I don't need to hear about how she spun or how you chased after her, what was he mad about? Yes, sunsets are very nice but, oh, no don't skip ahead, wait, huh? How much later, with who? Who are you talking about now???" Just memories of the beauty and the ugly and the spinning, the god damned twirling is all that remains in the minds eye.
4 No Script No Shoes No Service out of 10 (BAD)
"Wonder WTF were they thinking?"
Serial genius and cinema introvert Terrance Malick (Outlands, Tree of Life) crafts another incomprehensible, inner monologue burdened film, this time without all the metaphysical musings or dinosaur cameos or tour-de-force minimalist acting. No, this time its a romance drama, a film about a strained relationship, and it stars Ben Affleck as an environmentalist with a woman problem for 2 hours. Sigh.
Not that you'll be seeing much of Ben's face, if that is a deterrent. The camera lens is always the main star of modern Malick films, and brooding Affleck or any of the characters are rarely seen talking on screen. The film is as beautiful as the rest of Terry's oeuvre, though perhaps hampered by being centered in suburban Oklahoma. The main female lead is constantly twirling twirling twirling, never can she stop spinning and you can almost forgive Affleck's indifference to a woman who is constantly flittering around like a broken humming bird who he has to chase her to show his love. Actress Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace) fills her dizzying role and speaks her tipsy french memoir laden monologue but don't ask if the acting is any good because that is not the point of this movie. It is not story driven, it is image and emotion driven, the few scant pieces of dialogue barely give enough of an impression as to what the heck is actually going on, let alone form an opinion. It is structured like an ambiguous novel where its up to you to fill in the numerous blanks. It is interesting to see a film told through almost visuals alone, especially ones crafted so well (but begs to have a half hour edited out). However Malick already did that to better effect in Tree of Life, with a more significant story and moving emotions and a REASON to exist (and somewhat less twirling and chasing).
To The Wonder feels exactly like an Alzheimer patient musing on a long past relationship, and you are struggling to understand the stream of thought that is unaware of your need for information: "Wait, slow down how did they meet? No I don't need to hear about how she spun or how you chased after her, what was he mad about? Yes, sunsets are very nice but, oh, no don't skip ahead, wait, huh? How much later, with who? Who are you talking about now???" Just memories of the beauty and the ugly and the spinning, the god damned twirling is all that remains in the minds eye.
4 No Script No Shoes No Service out of 10 (BAD)
Prometheus (2012)
Prometheus (R)
"Just leave it alone"
The problem with our modern age of epic films and the media hype that surround them is that it is misinformation. Especially if you try to remain spoiler free, then you miss all the hints and bad juju that the new much-hyped blockbuster won't be exactly what you came to expect. Director Ridley Scott is back with a new entry into the genre he pretty much invented, the Serious SciFi Adventure movie, but what it really is another stale "Chariot of the Gods" retread. What it really is? Older filmmakers philosophizing about God and Death and Evolution while pretending to set it within the framework of the Aliens Alternate Universe (they've since gone on record as saying its not a prequel, thanks Fox marketing). It is also Michael Fassbender getting the creepy androids back on track (sorry Winona). It is likeable Noomi Rapace in the role of "female who survives" and Charlise Theron as the "cold corporate bitch". It is the Captain and his rag tag loveable crew making some points with some charming moments and easy repartee. It is beautiful pictures and design and use of light (though mostly uneeded 3D and inappropriate use of music). Then it is thrown away, again and again. The best example I can give is the greatest scene in the film, the pro-choice answer to the old Alien impregnation problem. Gory, ballsy and flinch inducing, this scene really works (even if it's just a twist on the same shock scene in the original Alien). Followed shortly thereafter by the same character getting into more philosophical discussions with Weyland (Guy Pearce in terrible old man makeup) and putting herself directly back in danger 5 minutes later. Some survivor, sigh. Thrown away, all the suspense buildup and terror and shock, just to gab about some space religion garbage that no one is really that interested about. Thrown away, all the love and tradition of the core Alien films, Prometheus touches that beloved universe just enough to try and poison what came before (hey Ridley, Leave my Space Jockey alone!). Luckily it is not Ridley's Episode I (it is too good to be labeled that, we can all thank him for that). But it is like the pandora's box that was Episode III, where you couldn't see that silly man in the black helmet without hearing that terrible "Nooooo" echoing through around the walls of your childhood. If Ridley just wanted to make a movie about our alien forebears and "hey guys, who really built the pyramids", then he should have left all ALIEN (1977) references out of it damnit. The scripts rewrites and rethinks can be plainly seen (there are several franchise references, lines from previous films, prequelism on mediocre par with the new The Thing, plot points that just stick out like mutated thumbs, scenes that just stink of a hollywood reboot), and yet completely disregards so much that it is NOT a prequel. It's a huge mess. So, now then, what is this movie really about if it's not just another entry into a beloved series? If its not about xenomorphs eating and popping out of us? Fear of death? Fear of change? Religion? Fear of technology evolving our lives beyond recognition and leading to our demise? Maybe, that last one is the only thing that I've really been able to settle on. I have this horrible feeling that a 40 year old Ridley Scott, being handed this exact script in 1978, without the option for CGI excess, with model makers and amazing set design and tripods and gallons of premade fake blood, without all the baggage of personal aging and previous Alien experiences, without twitter and facebook and viral marketing, that without all that this could have made another masterpiece. Instead it just feels like a beautiful mistake, a literal miscarriage of artistry. Apt, since Alien and its kin have always preyed upon our primal fears of the circle of life, sex and death.
4 Space Truckers out of 10 (BAD)
"Just leave it alone"
The problem with our modern age of epic films and the media hype that surround them is that it is misinformation. Especially if you try to remain spoiler free, then you miss all the hints and bad juju that the new much-hyped blockbuster won't be exactly what you came to expect. Director Ridley Scott is back with a new entry into the genre he pretty much invented, the Serious SciFi Adventure movie, but what it really is another stale "Chariot of the Gods" retread. What it really is? Older filmmakers philosophizing about God and Death and Evolution while pretending to set it within the framework of the Aliens Alternate Universe (they've since gone on record as saying its not a prequel, thanks Fox marketing). It is also Michael Fassbender getting the creepy androids back on track (sorry Winona). It is likeable Noomi Rapace in the role of "female who survives" and Charlise Theron as the "cold corporate bitch". It is the Captain and his rag tag loveable crew making some points with some charming moments and easy repartee. It is beautiful pictures and design and use of light (though mostly uneeded 3D and inappropriate use of music). Then it is thrown away, again and again. The best example I can give is the greatest scene in the film, the pro-choice answer to the old Alien impregnation problem. Gory, ballsy and flinch inducing, this scene really works (even if it's just a twist on the same shock scene in the original Alien). Followed shortly thereafter by the same character getting into more philosophical discussions with Weyland (Guy Pearce in terrible old man makeup) and putting herself directly back in danger 5 minutes later. Some survivor, sigh. Thrown away, all the suspense buildup and terror and shock, just to gab about some space religion garbage that no one is really that interested about. Thrown away, all the love and tradition of the core Alien films, Prometheus touches that beloved universe just enough to try and poison what came before (hey Ridley, Leave my Space Jockey alone!). Luckily it is not Ridley's Episode I (it is too good to be labeled that, we can all thank him for that). But it is like the pandora's box that was Episode III, where you couldn't see that silly man in the black helmet without hearing that terrible "Nooooo" echoing through around the walls of your childhood. If Ridley just wanted to make a movie about our alien forebears and "hey guys, who really built the pyramids", then he should have left all ALIEN (1977) references out of it damnit. The scripts rewrites and rethinks can be plainly seen (there are several franchise references, lines from previous films, prequelism on mediocre par with the new The Thing, plot points that just stick out like mutated thumbs, scenes that just stink of a hollywood reboot), and yet completely disregards so much that it is NOT a prequel. It's a huge mess. So, now then, what is this movie really about if it's not just another entry into a beloved series? If its not about xenomorphs eating and popping out of us? Fear of death? Fear of change? Religion? Fear of technology evolving our lives beyond recognition and leading to our demise? Maybe, that last one is the only thing that I've really been able to settle on. I have this horrible feeling that a 40 year old Ridley Scott, being handed this exact script in 1978, without the option for CGI excess, with model makers and amazing set design and tripods and gallons of premade fake blood, without all the baggage of personal aging and previous Alien experiences, without twitter and facebook and viral marketing, that without all that this could have made another masterpiece. Instead it just feels like a beautiful mistake, a literal miscarriage of artistry. Apt, since Alien and its kin have always preyed upon our primal fears of the circle of life, sex and death.
4 Space Truckers out of 10 (BAD)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Kevin Gasaway via HardDrawn
- Turlock, California, United States
- Media and Reviews by Kevin Gasaway