John’s Old School Horror Corner: Killer Workout (1987), one of the most TnA-rich raunchy throwbacks I’ve ever seen
Pretty classy poster, right?
MY CALL: Hardly horror at all, this was deliciously cheesy and raunchy to the point of hilarity. Watch this to remind yourself of what it’s like to be a teenage boy. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Death Spa (1989), which was basically a failed attempt to duplicate this with a zanier plot, more attention to kills and effects, and way less TnA. There’s even a scene when someone tags the gym “Death Spa,” perhaps influencing the title of the subsequent movie. ALTERNATE TITLE: Aerobicide.
Brace yourself for sweaty hard bodies, ass-choking leotards, hot pink tights and excessively inappropriate camera angles as we are introduced to Rhonda’s (Marcia Karr; Maniac Cop, Savage Streets) gym. They’ve turned up the volume on the 80s-ometer warning us that they probably used more of the budget on the soundtrack than whatever we get in the form of special effects.
Nope. That’s not a prostitute walking up to the Bunny Ranch. That’s an aerobics instructor in her classiest uniform hitting the gym.
In the opening scene some naked chick is killed in a laughably violent tanning bed accident. What seems to be the very next day a woman is brutally murdered in the women’s locker room shower. Despite daily homicides people keep coming to the gym as if nothing happened and never seem to wonder what happened to their training partner.
She didn’t exactly miss her Zumba class because of the flu.
Now, let’s be real for a moment here. Before we hit “play” we all knew there wasn’t going to be a good story and that there would be no character development. We came to laugh as people get killed with random gym apparatuses. And, given that this is very low budget 80s horror, we understood that most of these death scenes would occur off-screen after a shot of a hand holding a weapon and followed by someone spraying blood on the wall. But what this flick lacks in knives cleaving sweaty cleavage, it makes up for with extra cheese.
We get our raunchy cheese, as any cheese connoisseur would have it, in a variety of forms. There are the standard shower scenes along with the opening tanning bed scene. But the real highlights here are aerobics montages to remind us that back in the 80s women pretty much dressed like hookers when they worked out. We learn that the camera man understood his instructions loud and clear as we are bombarded by tandem close-ups of sweaty bouncing aerobic boobs, thong-wedgied butts and leg-spreading crotch shots. No joke–the aerobic routines are more than a little slutty and there’s an inordinate amount of this. Every 10-15 minutes it’s like the director was just filming hooker tryouts. SIX TIMES we get these bouncy slut montages encored by a highlights reel during the closing credits. LOL. We even see a scarred up burn victim’s bare breasts in more than one lengthy scene!!! That’s an awful LOT of screen time for TnA even in a raunchy horror flick.
I have no clue what this move is called. But I think I love it.
Yup. This really happens in this flick…a lot.
But the cheese oozes all the way to the kills themselves like when someone is stabbed to death with a giant safety pin–and no, that’s not a typo, an over-sized safety pin! Evidently that’s the killer’s weapon of choice. In addition to the lame kills, there are some funny martial arts fights between a couple of meatheads. They’re really going for it on the karate, too. These goofy fights are complete with jump spin kicks and during one of them a bro gets stabbed with a rake.
These two bros are locked in heated fury in this bro-fu match.
Watch this because you want to roll your eyes, laugh and feel young and dumb again. But, bro…seriously, bro. Don’t watch this with your girlfriend or wife. I don’t care how cool she is or how much she likes horror. She will judge you every second of this flick’s running time and will be totally justified in doing so. LMAO
I think the word you’re looking for is CLASSY.
Share this post:
MY CALL: What a pleasant surprise! Good gore, a story that kept me curious and odd creature-effects outweighed the blaring acting and film-adapted writing flaws. Fans of gore and H. P. Lovecraft should definitely try out this little gem and enjoy. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: I was quite pleased with the Lovecraft adaptation Dagon (2001). Also try Hellraiser (1987) and The Re-Animator (1985) for serious gore and weird tones. ALTERNTATE TITLE: Shatterbrain, I have no clue why.
Watching this movie you’ll find yourself frequently asking “what is THAT?”
This nifty Lovecraftian film is about a man who finds the lab journals of an old ancestor and is drawn into continuing his work–however morally questionable it may be. Private detective John March, the narrator of our story, is approached by Claire Ward about her husband Charles Dextor Ward (Chris Sarandon; Fright Night remake and original, Child’s Play, Bordello of Blood) and why exactly he moved out of their home and especially why he requires suspicious quantities of meat and blood delivered for his mysterious experiments. Charles’ laboratory, a secluded house, has a local reputation for wreaking of carrion. Hmmmm…
What is THAT for?
While all Lovecraft-adaptations diverge from the actual stories, the better ones retain strong elements amid modernizations. Director Dan O’Bannon (Return of the Living Dead and writer of Alien, Life Force, Total Recall, Screamers, Bleeders and the Total Recall remake, among many others) follows suit accordingly with heavy weird tones, a general adoration for the macabre and a powerful element of mystery that prods viewers’ curiosity into wondering the same things as Charles’ estranged wife. “What is he working on at the house? Why does he need all that meat? What is that smell?”
Based on H. P. Lovecraft’s “The Strange Case of Charles Dexter Ward,” this adaptation is far from action-packed. Instead, it follows Lovecraftian suit with horror that prods at your curiosity. It is one of the better Lovecraft adaptations I have yet seen, with some disturbing images and ambiance. It captures the atmosphere and the alchemy, the darkness and the “less is more” approach that leave haunting little shadows staring at its viewer, and it feeds the imagination. Another reason it is worth tasting is because it also leads the viewer forward, tempting them to keep going in order to unravel the mystery of what has happened.
As Dr. Ward, Chris Sarandon does a fine job. He captures the tone and the horror of discovery well. Missing the mark and deviating far from the purpose of the film is the grossly over-focused attention to a (pointless) romantic interest between Ward’s wife and the detective. This side-story is handled poorly and inconsistently, as if the writer couldn’t decide whether to escalate the romance or not. But, ill-placed romantic subplot aside, this is about as smart a film as we could hope for providing such a tiny budget. As Lovecraft wrote of utilizing the “essential saltes” of an organism to bring it back from the dead, Ward’s work is suggestive of genetic experimentation and cloning. Unfortunately for Ward, the results were not exactly as he expected.
What’s a Lovecraft story with out a dash of madness?
What is THAT?
Lots of gore, blood and various remains. We enjoy great zombie (i.e., animated dead flesh) effects, some off-putting surgical imagery and surreal dream sequences. The monster effects and action are limited largely to the very end, but it’s all well worth the wait. There are LOADS of special effects in the third act. Some classic, refreshing stop-motion and claymation action as well as creature make-ups.
What are those evil dead hands doing?
This film was a really nice surprise. REALLY. This is for lovers of gore, the macabre, Lovecraft, dark horror films and worthy horror stories.
Share this post:
Jack the Giant Slayer (2013), proof that bigger isn’t better
http://jordanandeddie.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/film-review-jack-the-giant-slayer-2013/
MY CALL: Maybe great for preteens. But for adults this is just plain not good. I was disappointed by the effects, the characters and the action. So…pretty much everything. WHAT TO WATCH INSTEAD: Want something a little bit more serious (but still funny), with more appropriate creatures, creature personalities and creature effects? Then watch Troll Hunter (2010). Want to see truly gigantic things fighting in amazing action sequences? Try Pacific Rim (2013), even though the acting, characters and story are at the same level.
http://myreelpov.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/ask-not-whence-the-thunder-comes-jack-the-giant-slayer/
Director Bryan Singer, the man behind X-Men and X2 (the “good” movies of the franchise), truly disappointed me with his spin on Jack and the Beanstalk. Other than a few somewhat funny moments, this movie was simply moderately entertaining and largely a letdown. This is just my opinion though. So if you want to cut the criticism short and hear a review from someone who had a more positive experience with this movie, then please read Mark’s review instead.
This classic tale follows the classic plot points. Jack trades something for some “magic beans,” he’s scolded for being stupid by his uncle, the seeds get wet and a bean stalk on steroids lifts his house to the land of giants up in the clouds, and then he faces off against giants.
http://myreelpov.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/ask-not-whence-the-thunder-comes-jack-the-giant-slayer/
As Jack, Nicholas Hoult (Warm Bodies, X-Men: First Class) brings a strong sense of purity and goodness as if it came naturally to him. Despite that, I wasn’t otherwise impressed by his performance at all, which is unusual. I typically very much enjoy his acting. We quickly meet his love interest, future queen Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson; Alice in Wonderland), who also fails to impress me and is accidently carried to the land of giants with Jack’s house.
http://myreelpov.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/ask-not-whence-the-thunder-comes-jack-the-giant-slayer/
Jack (Nicholas Hoult) and Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson)
A smooth, well-spoken and stylishly haired knight named Elmont (Ewan McGregor; Haywire, The Impossible) leads a band to rescue Isabelle from the land of giants. He goes with a company of knights, Jack and Isabelle’s extremely unsavory intended husband Roderick (Stanley Tucci; The Hunger Games, Captain America: The First Avenger). Roderick slithers his way through the story and manages to do something despicable every step of the way. He backstabs everybody and sides with the giants to seize King Brahmwell’s (Ian McShane; Snow White and the Huntsman, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides) kingdom below for himself. I was unimpressed with all of these characters. ALL OF THEM!!! Sorry. I call it like I see it.
The giants are led by General Fallon (Bill Nighy; Total Recall, Wrath of the Titans). Bill Nighy normally does great playing evil bad guys (e.g., Underworld, the Pirates franchise). However, I felt he really missed his regular benchmark here. Nothing about his character struck me as inhuman except for the CGI that illustrated him on screen. Speaking of which, the CGI is just “okay.” I’ve seen MUCH better. I guess it does its job but shows far too strong of a contrast with the non-computer-generated actors and backgrounds. This goes not only for the giants, but for the fantasy-scapes as well. Much as General Fallon, the other giants fail to feel like monsters outside of eating humans and their deliberate appearance. They’re simply mean “giant” humans and, as a result, were uninteresting.
http://myreelpov.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/ask-not-whence-the-thunder-comes-jack-the-giant-slayer/
Sadly, while provoking a few giggles, I didn’t care for the action either. And the ending was just awful. I can comfortably say that there were only three things that I really liked about this movie.
1) There’s a knight with a monocle. That’s as random as the Monopoly guy fighting in the UFC.
2) General Fallon’s second head. It’s a brain-damaged, malformed little mongoloid that growls, cackles and mumbles incoherently with a stupid, googly-eyed look on its face at all times. It reminded me of Gollum.
http://becomingthefuhrer.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/jack-the-giant-slayer-film-review/
3) Ewan McGregor’s hair. I had no idea that fantasy knights had access to decent hair products.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: Good Heroes Need Good Villains
The Wolverine is not a bad movie. It tries really hard to be likable but loses it’s way when it indulges in bloodless CGI battles, wonky villains and too much drama. It tells an insular story that never finds a rhythm but is light years ahead of X-Men The Last Stand and Origins. You can tell Hugh Jackman is passionate about the role because of all the chicken breasts he’s had to eat over the years. He cares for the character and wants to give The Wolverine purists something to love. It is never in doubt that his bearded immortal has seen too much, lost everyone and enjoys bottles labeled “straight whiskey.”
The biggest problem with the film is the reliance on CGI and underwritten villains/characters. Why establish characters then lose them in quickly edited battle or dream sequences. The human moments are what make The Wolverine better than Origins and Last Stand. Those films betrayed character and lost everything that made them likable (shut Deadpool’s mouth, made Mystique human). Remember when Jean Grey died in X2? The scene was amazing because you felt loss and urgency in one deadly moment. It went beyond a comic book film and became cinema. You cared for the characters and it wasn’t an empty shell of self-importance and kiddie pool deep themes (Man of Steel). The same character building tactics were used in successful films like Spider Man 2, The Dark Knight, Chronicle and Iron Man.
Wolverine works best when humans are fighting. There are two moments that I wanted to highlight. One scene involves two tough Yakuza thugs, a speeding train and an ailing wolverine. They jump, stab and claw their way to the best moment of the film. There is something at stake and it is a battle of wits, knives and sideburns. You admire the doomed Yakuza and you love how Wolverine dispatches them.
Another cool scene involves Wolverine’s impromptu bodyguard (Rila Fukushima) protecting him while he is vulnerable. The scene works because the immortal/indestructible mutant can’t move and needs to be protected. She battles a much stronger man in a barrage of flips, dodges, ducks, dips, dives and dodges. The scene has a human element that has made Batman and Iron Man so popular. You care if she gets stabbed because she can’t heal. Her opponent is bigger, stronger and more experienced yet she fights desperately to give Logan the time he needs to heal himself. The fight is frantic, fun and well choreographed.
The quiet moments and character building are all lost in arrow fights, massive robots and the worst character in X-Men history. The Viper played by Svetlana Khodchenkova is reminiscent of Uma Thurman’s Poison Ivy. However, Svetlana is no Uma and her character comes across as smug and totally unnecessary. Also, you get a subplot about a jealous son and large metal robot. They are so underwritten it makes all their scenes useless. Sure, things are going boom and dudes are getting slashed but it feels like an excuse for a shirtless Jackman to wreck some fools. Popular superhero films (Dark Knight, Spider Man 2, X2) all had menacing bad guys who you liked and feared (Joker, Loki, Doc. Ock, Stryker, Magneto). Their actions carried believable malice that kept you on the edge of your seat. Within The Wolverine world you don’t care because you know the bad guys are just claw fodder for the side burned angry fella. I’m pretty sure that bottle of straight whiskey gave Logan a bigger headache than the legions of ninjas.
The Wolverine is not a bad film. It attempted to tell a classic story but forgot about making interesting bad guys. The same thing happened to Pacific Rim. In all the hoopla of telling an action packed story they forgot to create three-dimensional characters. What followed were underwhelming box office and no hard feelings. Critics and audiences like the two films but they didn’t love them. Thus, they will be great on TNT/FX but forgotten in the canon of Superhero lore.
Watch the Wolverine. Appreciate the train fight. Root for Rila. Watch X2.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: The Conjuring (2013), a nearly perfect, instant classic horror with amazing characters and direction
MY CALL: Poltergeist (1982) meets The Exorcist (1973) in this modern horror classic that only fails to meet perfection because its predecessors already claimed the title by pioneering the scenes and atmosphere that form modern horror filmmaking dogma as we know it today. But James Wan kicks up the competition and demonstrates his mastery of storytelling and character development in a genre that normally relies entirely on atmosphere and gore-slathered effects to fill seats. IF YOU LIKE THIS THEN WATCH: Poltergeist (1982), in case you missed it. Also, anything from my series The Best Horror Came from the 80s or the upcoming The Best Horror Came from the 70s–back when horror actually came with a story and characters worth watching. SIDEBAR: Mark (not a major fan of horror) also wrote a very positive review of The Conjuring and offered an overview of director James Wan’s impressive work.
Let’s just start by saying that this wasn’t just a great horror movie. This was a solid film and a horror movie based on a true account of Ed and Lorraine Warren’s case with the Perron family in the 1970s. There were loads of scares and—while, yes, they were often “jump scares”—the creepy tension-building on the approach was finely crafted. You would know that “something” was about to happen and it was going to be scary, but it would still manage to catch you off guard, and you wouldn’t feel that the scare was “cheap.” Already this film has rightly stepped away from the last several dozen theatrical horror releases by engaging viewers with more than just funny satirical demons and loud noises masquerading as scary things.
Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson as Lorraine and Ed Warren
Director James Wan’s (Insidious, Saw) film is consistent and smart, feeding viewers a steady and even diet of story and character development for both our haunted family and the paranormal investigators. Instead of taking the first twenty minutes to introduce us to the characters and hope that we invest ourselves enough to care when their lives are threatened, Wan piece by piece reveals the nature of the Perron family, their house and the paranormalists who come to their aid.
Roger (Ron Livingston; Office Space) and Carolyn Perron (Lily Taylor; The Haunting, Hemlock Grove) have just moved their five daughters into a secluded house in Rhode Island and, as we’ve come to expect in horror movies, all horror movie houses come with a dark past. Upon realizing that their troubles eclipsed the simplicity of a sleepwalking daughter and the stress of adapting to a new home, the Perrons seek help from Ed (Patrick Wilson; The Watchmen, Insidious) and Lorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga; Source Code, Safe House), two married paranormal researchers with an impressive résumé when it comes to purging evil.
The big success in storytelling and direction here is that because Wan presented the Warrens to us in the opening scenes–to set the tone and show us how these paranormal investigators work–and fairly alternated between their college lecture circuit and the escalating situation in the Perron house before the two couples had met. We weren’t force fed some ghost hunters halfway through the movie (or later) who we are “supposed to like.” Instead, we’ve already met them and learned that they’re not some spirit hunting hacks who “hope” to find ghosts and get evidence so they can be taken seriously. They hope there “aren’t” ghosts, they’re not in it for the money or fame, and they just want to help people (with an understandably fearful reluctance) utilizing their strange gifts.
Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson as Lorraine and Ed Warren
A VERY evil doll
A VERY evil music box
Score one for character development and great direction in a horror film, James Wan!
Following in the obvious footsteps of Poltergeist (1982) and The Exorcist (1973), we are met with some very familiar scenes. However, I felt this was a respectful nod executed with a succinct sense of urgency rather than simply riding coattails and milking past horror axioms for all they’re worth. The Conjuring skips most of the “are they just nuts” skepticism that would normally dominate the first half of a movie like this and gets right to dealing with the problem in a surprisingly practical manner. As a result, most horror moviegoers’ maddening frustrations are avoided in this film; no one does anything dumb or too perfectly right, the characters develop to protect their own and don’t turn into sudden superhero evil-slaying experts over night, they don’t walk into any traps when they should’ve known better, there are no ridiculous “Antichrist baby-Hell on Earth-chosen one-omen-gypsy curse-ancient relic-house built over sacred burial ground and angering the spirits” reasons justifying the spirit or what it wants or why it chose them, and they even address why the Perron family doesn’t leave the damned house and if it would make a difference at all if they did. All of this is done with simple explanation and for good reasons.
Score for the writers! By the way, the same writers (the Hayes brothers) will be doing the already announced sequel The Conjuring 2!!! However I have not found anything indicating Wan’s involvement.
As we slowly relax our muscles between creepy tension, scares, “wait is there more?” and then the next creepy tension, we wade through some shocking imagery, disturbing shots, a little bit of brief gross stuff (but nothing truly gastro-intestinally gruesome and gore-slathered as we find in Tucker and Dale vs Evil, The Cabin in the Woods, Drag Me to Hell or Evil Dead) and eerie sounds. Then there’s the perfect–PERFECT–atmosphere that Wan spins. Only with this paramount atmosphere could a small child staring into her dark bedroom corner (as we view nothing but out of focus “black”) be as terrifying as the most horrible monster leaping from behind a corner drooling all manner of evil yuck.
As most horror is rushed and features a slapped together story-and-victims-sandwich as a vehicle to shock us with cringing brutality, creature make-up and buckets of rubber guts, Wan demonstrates a mature and tactful restraint which, contrary to most horror filmmakers’ training, is wildly successful and eclipses most horror of the last two decades! Even Wan’s shot transitions were thoughtfully discomforting and artistic.
The Conjuring is rated R rating but actually seems less scary and intense than Poltergeist (1982)–of course, Poltergeist was WAY scary and I’d keep the kids over 14 to watch it! I mean, it is scary–very scary. But the gore is by no means a highlight and I didn’t even notice the profanity (whatever there was). All I noticed was that I was never bored or “waiting” for something cool to happen. I was immersed and loved every minute of this modern classic horror.
Share this post:
Red 2: Bigger, Louder, Pleasant
Red 2 works very hard to be likable. It is perfect TNT/FX/TBS fare that will have a long shelf life on cable. It breezily travels the globe (Moscow, Paris, London), features John Malkovich in a Carmen Miranda fruit headdress and gives Korean star Byung-hun Lee a suitable vehicle to flex his muscles.
The biggest problem with Red 2 is that it is like every sequel ever made. it is Bigger, louder and heavily populated with character actors. The film packs in Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Mary Louise-Parker, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox, Byung-hun Lee, Anthony Hopkins, David Thewlis and Neal McDonough into the two hour running time. Some of these characters are fun (Malkovich, Mirren, Cox, Lee) some are underwritten (Hopkins, Zeta-Jones, Louise Parker) and others are more of the same (Willis, Willis and Willis).
The problem with sequels is that everything gets bigger. Character development gets thrown out of the window and it becomes character embellishment. If a character tic worked in the original it becomes a very loud character trait in the sequel. An example of this is Mary Louise-Parker in Red 2. Her dorkiness was wonderful in the first film but in the sequel is turned up to 11. Her willingness to be in on the action and her jealously of Zeta-Jones are unwarranted. Thus, you are stuck with a very loud plot device who takes away from the characters you like. Her zany moments fuel many chases scenes and set pieces with forced hilarity as opposed to organic laughs. This isn’t Louise-Parker’s fault. She does a great job at what she is given but you can’t shake the memory of how much more likable her character was in the original.
Red 2 focuses on a missing nuclear bomb that will kill millions unless Willis and Co. can disarm it. Along the way many people are killed, Malkovich is cheeky and Byung-hunLee steals the show (he kills a dude with origami). The best moments involve little character scenes like Brian Cox worshiping Helen Mirren as she shoots dozens of soldiers. Tiny moments like this are far more memorable than the huge explosions and car chases that happen every other minute. You want more of Malkovich and Lee giving Willis relationship advice. Watching two trained killers give another trained killer advice about his dorky yet sweet girlfriend is why you are watching the movie.
Action is necessary but should never trump character. Also, Red 2 puts it’s characters in outlandish situations and outfits to get laughs instead of earning the chuckles by building set pieces or interesting dialogue. Take a look at this pic below and you will understand. There is no reason to be in matching outfits other than to create laughs.
In a day and age where ever superhero is morose and brooding it is nice to have a comic book adaption that focuses on having fun. However, Red 2 doesn’t achieve the cohesive charm that the original accomplished. There are moments that make it recommendable but it doesn’t have the wit and charm of the first installment. the lack of likability is a shame because it means we won’t be spending any more time with these characters. Hopefully, it is big overseas so we can get a buddy cop style comedy starring Malkovich, Mirren and Lee.
Share this post:
R.I.P.D. (2013), a paint-by-numbers approach to destroying a potentially fun movie with poor filmmaking
MY CALL: This could have been a very fun spin on Men in Black with evil spirits and undead law enforcement had it not been for soul-crushingly bad directing and film-editing which rendered this movie hardly watchable-maybe even unwatchable. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: The Men in Black series (1997, 2002, 2012) for sure! They succeed in terms of budget, writing and direction where R.I.P.D. fails over and over again.
Let’s start by addressing something that must be acknowledged before we proceed to the review…I have a bro-crush on Ryan Reynolds (Safe House, The Change-Up). It’s no secret. He’s got a sharp sense of humor, even sharper features and abs, and is the leading cause of SHAD (screaming heart attack syndrome) in women under 40. I’ll admit it–I wish I was him, I want to hang out with him and he may be the only actor who I’d ever approach in public like a total fan boy. I have a history of defending his poor choices. Poor direction and even worse writing and character development led to the utter ruin of Green Lantern (2011), pulling Ryan into the wake of vicious criticism misdirected at the star instead of a stillborn script followed up by ill-execution. And while I was pretty disappointed with X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), again I must blame the director and writers. Besides, every Marvel fan EVER is now totally stoked for the day that Ryan finally stars in a Deadpool movie–if only they’d stop the eternal buzz-cancel cycle. He’s one of the coolest guys ever and he gets a bad rap. People say “he’s no movie star.” But if Anthony Hopkins or Denzel was given a shit script I have a feeling people would suddenly rush to their defense and point their fingers at the director and/or lousy lines. Since Ryan has a history of choosing more “fun” movies, I guess he has yet to garner the clout of these more-reputed actors.
That said, I loved watching Ryan in R.I.P.D. That’s not to say that I liked the movie…which was horrible. But Ryan was his typical fast-on-the-trigger quippy self. I thought he acted his role well and provided what we wanted. Unfortunately, as has plagued him before, poor direction and even worse film-editing muted the effectiveness and timing of his better lines. Actually, this flaw hampered all of the lines and all of the scenes! This must be the most produced movie I’ve ever seen for which I specifically noticed the awful work that took place on the cutting room floor–a rare observation, I believe, if you stop to think about it. Outside of being a Ryan fan, this deficiency was so prevalent that I’d deem this movie nearly unwatchable to anyone who isn’t under the influence of a behavior-modifying substance.
This debacle follows Nick (Ryan Reynolds), a skilled cop who is murdered in the line of duty by his crooked partner. Then he joins an undead police force (the RIPD)–the origins of which are never explained–under the tutelage of a more experienced, critical joker of an 1800s lawman. Together they are charged with recovering souls that have escaped judgment and hide among the living. These evil souls, called “deados”, leave clues as a result of their foul “soul stank” and reveal their true form in the presence of Indian food–you got that…Indian food, OF F@(#!^@ COURSE, is the cosmic identifier of evil souls–even the mere suggestion or description of Indian food forces deados to reveal their true nature. That was a nice funny and utterly rando-insane touch.
If you saw the previews on TV and thought “well, this feels familiar,” it’s because it should be. This movie does more than simply borrow from Men in Black (1997). This basically IS Men in Black but with evil Hell-bound souls and undead lawmen instead of aliens and alien-hunting agents. Our RIPD characters are equipped with special weapons, hunt perps that the public doesn’t know about, have a special secret workplace and, since they couldn’t have a Neuralizer, they appear to the living in different forms: avatars. Jeff Bridges, who appears as drunk as when he’d step off the set of True Grit, appears as Victoria’s Secret supermodel Marisa Miller and Ryan Reynolds appears as “an old Chinese guy” (James Hong; Kung Fu Panda 2, Safe). Despite all the entertaining potential of this MIB remake, destitute filmmaking all the way from poor camera angle choices to post-production yields an unsavory result.
The poor choice to work on this movie was not Ryan’s alone. Kevin Bacon (Crazy Stupid Love, X-Men: First Class) strikes me as entirely out of place playing Ryan’s crooked cop partner. Every time I saw Bacon on screen all I could think was duuude? What are you even doing here!?!!?! Why are you in this? Whereas Jeff Bridges (TRON: Legacy, Crazy Heart) presents a mess of a hybrid between a more jovial version of his True Grit role and Men in Black‘s Agent K. Picking up Rip Torn’s MIB role is Mary-Louise Parker (RED 2, Weeds), who does fine, I guess. The deado CGI effects were also a mixed bag of fun, neat to look at, mundane or boring. Speaking of boring, the action at the end of the movie is really disappointing. The whole finale is disappointing–even the idea behind it.
There are a lot of beloved actors in this. But don’t trust them! It’s a TRAP!!!! This movie will likely make you lose respect for them. I can only hope that this will receive some special post-release Blu-Ray cut that better allows these actors to shine, be funny and entertain us. But as it stands this was more like watching Men in Black underwater without headphones or goggles.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: When Horror Forgets its Roots
The new Evil Dead is a nasty little thing with none of the charm that made Evil Dead 1 & 2 and Army of Darkness cult classics (Horror Czar John loved it though. review). The movie introduces us to stock characters who will eventually die in incredibly bloody ways. Limbs will be lost, tongues will be cut in half, nail guns will be used, machetes swung, pliers plunged, crow bars bludgeoned and power knives used. It guides us through increasingly violent set pieces until an ending that literally rains blood.
While watching the Dead remake it got me thinking about They Live. John Carpenter made a trio of classics with Kurt Russel (The Thing, Escape from New York, Big Trouble Little China) in the 80s and looked to continue the epic run. However, Kurt wasn’t available for They Live so Carpenter cast professional wrestler Rowdy Roddy Piper to play the lead. Between the one-liners, relevant themes and bad acting the film has become a cult classic treasured by horror buffs and pop culture. The reason this film is still popular is because it has bumps and bruises (watch the fight below) that make it endearing.
Greatest fight ever!
The same thing goes for the original Evil Dead. The low budget, bad acting and creativity made it a classic. The movie exuded glee and showcased the skills of Sam Raimi. Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness are completely unique. They are equal parts bonkers, insane and wonderful. They shouldn’t exist on this planet because they are live action looney tunes of beautiful gore and pompous behavior.
Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell executive produced the 2013 remake and director Fede Alvarez wisely chose to make some changes. He cast the lovely Jane Levy as the lead and took out the zany humor and dancing skeletons. Alvarez makes thing bleed extraordinarily well and stays true to the original without stealing it’s style. However, in the process he has made a homogenized horror film that features familiar beats and bloody excess. I began to worry as Alvarez put more emphasis on the practical effects (lots of blood, makeup) than story. Whenever I hear how practical everything is I get worried because some movies care more about the look than the characters. So, you are stuck with great looking homicide and little reason to care.
The remake is too clean. Sure, it is dirty, violent and bloody. However, it is manicured violence much like many of it’s remake cousins. The acting isn’t bad, the characters are decent and the plot is nicely layered. This film lovingly steals from the predecessor and finds new ways to get to the same moments. The movie is done so well it left zero room for personality. The technical superiority made it a sleek pilot-less drone of bloody carnage.
Horror fans don’t ask for high art. They just ask to be entertained. Maybe that is why I love films like Devil, Insidious, Conjuring and Session 9. I got caught up in their stories and genuinely liked some the characters which allowed me to forgive the familiar tropes.
The technical superiority of the remade Evil Dead and adherence to the original series has created a film with little character. I hope in the future horror films allow themselves to have a little bit of fun.
Share this post:
I really liked Pacific Rim but it felt like Del Toro wrote it in an hour by slamming his beefy hands on a laptop. Here is my theory as to how this film happened. Del Toro wasted years trying to adapt The Hobbit, Mountains of Madness and Hellboy 3. So, one night he decided to write his own film. He drew a doodle, got lucky and sold Warner Brothers on the idea of monsters vs. robots. Throughout all the scouting, CGI prep and choreography he totally forgot to write a second draft.
Fun, dumb and full of monster scum. Pacific Rim is a rock ’em sock ’em adventure with a soul crushing script and fantastic imagery. Guillermo Del Toro reportedly wrote 400 pages of back story, scouted many locations and painstakingly created beautiful robots and monsters. However, the film raises many inadvertent questions. Who are these people? Why are their accents so wonky? Why don’t they use that sword every time? Why don’t they use missiles? Why is that one guy so angry? Where did the 400 pages of back story go? Did he write a 200 page autobiography about the fat ape monster called “This is Who I Am..A Monster?”
You wonder how a man who made a talking fish, fire starter and Hellboy seem human could write such a weird script. He works so hard at creating beautiful carnage he forgot to make anything else interesting. The movie got me thinking about Independence Day. ID featured wholesale destruction, memorable action and likable characters. Remember when Randy Quaid sacrifices himself to save the world? That scene was fantastic to a 14 year old me. You cared for the characters and that is why the movie made boatloads of money. The biggest problem with Pacific Rim are the characters.
Pacific Rim is about monsters who come out from a portal in the Pacific and run amok on the populace. The world leaders unite and start building giants robots to guard the coastline. The robots start winning and all is good until the monsters adapt and start crunching the robots. The robot program is discontinued in favor of a giant wall. However, the monsters destroy the wall and the humans are forced to make a last stand with four robots piloted by Russians, Japanese, Australians (I think the accents went in and out) and a cocky American.
What follows are MASSIVE FIGHTS, CGI monsters and zero character development. Ultimately, you leave the theater with a smile on your face. It is hard not to appreciate the scale of the film. Del Toro has made a genuine blockbuster that will undoubtedly be a favorite of many kids and teenagers. You watch in awe as thousands of people work on a robot in a massive factory. You smile when a robot hits a monster in the head with a 200 yard tanker. You appreciate the realism when teeth are punched out of a monster’s face.
What I love most about this film are the nasty monsters. They are mean, resourceful and want to kill everything. They show zero emotion and go for the throat 100% of the time. What began as a level one monster crushing San Francisco progressed to level four monsters wiping out robots. The monsters are like bosses in a video game. They get bigger and badder until the level five final behemoth boss.
Pacific Rim is a rollicking good time. It was built to please and it succeeds on most levels. I just wish the characters would have been as three dimensional as the large robots and portal monsters.
Welcome back Del Toro! Glad to have you around. Can’t wait to see what you do next!
?
Share this post:
The Way, Way Back: Sam Rockwell is My Hero
While watching the Academy Awards two years ago I was shocked when Nat Faxon and Jim Rash walked up onto the stage with Alexander Payne to collect their much deserved screenplay Oscars. Over the last ten years I’ve watched and liked them in Club Dread, Beerfest, Community and Reno 911 so it was wonderful to see them succeed. They won the gold statues for The Descendants and Jim Rash immediately endeared himself to the American public.
A decade of hustling had ended as the doors finally opened for the duo. What would they do with their new fame and success? They decided to direct a film they wrote called The Way, Way Back. The 2006 script had gotten Hollywood’s attention (Payne hired them because of it), landed on the blacklist and was never green-lit. However, with the gold statue in hand they raised five million dollars, gathered a wonderful cast and proceeded to make one the best films of 2013.
Movies like The Way, Way Back are rare. It wasn’t churned out of Hollywood, isn’t a sequel and Steve Carrel plays a jerk. It has a finely tuned script loaded with realism, poignancy and laughs. Rash and Faxon drew from their life experiences to tell the story of what it is like to grow up gawky in a divorced family. The opening dialogue from the trailer actually happened to Rash as he sat in the way, way back of his families station wagon.
The Way, Way Back is the small snapshot of a kid who spends the summer with his Mom and her controlling boyfriend. The adults drink, the kids are unsupervised and bonds are formed. His mom is busy with the first man who pursued her and his dad isn’t available (married younger woman and lives across the country). So, it is up to him to learn life’s lessons. There will be bumps, bruises, first love and unfortunate nicknames like “Pop & Lock.” His salvation comes in the form of the ultra charismatic Sam Rockwell and a relic of a water park called Water Wizz. Rockwell is the manager of the old park and he makes it his mission to look after the gawky introvert. Together, they wax poetic, play Pac-Man and form an endearing father/son relationship.
Sidenote: Rockwell keeps up the wonderful tradition of showing off his wonderful dance moves.
The Way, Way Back is a gem because it shows that everybody has growing to do. It is never easy and age doesn’t matter because there is always something to learn. This film understands that and character growth never feels false or tacked on. The love interests aren’t manic pixie women (Annasophia Robb is wonderful), no parent is perfect (Allison Janney is perfect) and the people who live like they are in a Hemingway novel have tons of problems (Rob Corddry is my hero). There are things in life worth growing up for and the characters realize that.
Between this and Mud 2013 has been a wonderful year for coming of age stories. They are movies that all teenagers should watch because they feature friendship, first love and two incredibly charismatic mentors (Matthew McConaughey and Sam Rockwell). These kids immerse themselves in the world, get in trouble and mature via life experience.
The Way, Way Back is wonderful. Watch it. Learn some dance moves. Hope Allison Janney gets nominated for an Oscar.
Movies, Films & Flix 