John’s Horror Corner: Deadgirl (2008)
MY CALL: A coming of age tale gone wrong is presented in this alternative zombie film which casts an unsettling mood while taunting moral limits. The violence is hard to watch–unlike much modern horror–as it should be, and the most horrific acts of the film are appreciably implied more than shoved down our throats like most cheap shock cinema. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: If you seek another “real film” of a horror then turn to The Living Dead Girl (1982), another film which appears to be nothing more than an exploitation-flick at face value but manages to tell another, very different, moral story. SIDEBAR: Not to be confused with The Dead Girl (2006).
Right away we are introduced to some high school delinquent—Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez;
Red Riding Hood, upcoming reboot of The Evil Dead) and JT (Noah Segan; Cabin Fever 2). Bored while skipping school, they trespass their way into an abandoned mental hospital, drink, smoke and vandalize; essentially earning themselves an unfortunate fate by any horror standard. Wandering unadvisably deep into the unsafe building they make their way to a long rusted-shut room in the lower corridors in which they find “a dead girl.”
The dynamic between Rickie and JT is decently played. Although besties at initial face value, this thin veil is quickly drawn when JT becomes violently possessive of their “dead girl.” Naked, gagged, restrained and wrapped in plastic on as gurney—oh, right, and in a room rusted-shut and years (if not decades) separated from the world—the girl shows indications of somehow being alive. After some destitute acts, the moral bankruptcy of both boys becomes apparent, even if Rickie maintains the slightly higher moral ground throughout the story. Interestingly, we also learn that this girl seemingly can’t die.
As the mute “dead girl,” new-comer Scream Queen Jenny Spain produces some truly awkward, hauntingly pain-wracked, even quite disturbing (when not brilliantly menacing or unnerving) expressions. We find everything from hatred and fear to utter pandemonium in her eyes. On the down side, the film’s supporting roles are weak, even unnecessary. While many scenes take place at the boys’ high school or home, this could have been presented much more effectively as an extended one-act since all of the significant character development occurs, or could occur, in the abandoned mental hospital. However, the inclusion of the Joann character (Candice Accola; The Vampire Diaries) did, in fact, make for some interesting scenes that could not have been established with a one-act.
You need to check out this chick’s Scream Queen page. You can tell she wouldn’t be bad looking when she isn’t in “Deadgirl” make-up. But you wouldn’t expect her to be the reveleation that she is.
Given a circumstance that couldn’t possibly occur, this film examines sadism and temptation to the extreme. This serves as the most realistic approach to an undead movie I’ve ever seen, but includes psychological aspects that genuinely make a real film of it—even if presented with speaking parts that are heavily eclipsed by the story concept and the impressive, desperate emotions of “the dead girl.” Really, this is a great (though very sick) idea delivered—because of the maturity of the main characters—somewhat immaturely with an appropriate but unsurprising ending. But it is not without disturbing images, a new approach on questioning moral limits, and an alternative take on the undead. In that respect, this film was a unique success.
This strangely transitions from serious, disturbed and depraved, to borderline satirical. But with writer Trent Haaga and his long history with humorous exploitation cinema and Troma films, this shouldn’t be surprising. The inexperience of the directors is in some ways evident; inexperienced, but clearly proficient and with a gift for weaving this dark tone. But overall I’m surprised by the quality of the product, one which employed frequent nudity almost entirely for eerie mood setting above gratuitous presentation. Speaking of which, but not to objectify, why on Earth haven’t I seen Jenny Spain in anything after 2008? If someone didn’t see she was fantastic, then they couldn’t have been paying very close attention to the film or her character.
If you consider yourself any form of horror fan, then you simply must see this. Everyone has their own claim to why some movie is special or unique or what have you, but these directors and Jenny Spain have birthed a most graceful approach to the macabre while challenging our notions of youthful desire, jealousy and obsession.
CRITICAL ACCLAIM: At the 2010 Fangoria Chainsaw awards Deadgirl was nominated for Best limited/Direct to Video, Best Supporting Actor for Noah Segan, Best Screenplay for Trent Haaga and Best Make-Up/Creature FX for Jim Ojala.
Share this post:
The Hof had long ago put me on assignment to review the Ong Bak trilogy. The Hof’s take was that “It pretty much goes the same way as The Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean trilogies. First one is great, Second is ok (if you fast forward through story), Third is soul crushing.” Enjoy the review and stay tuned for reviews of Ong Bak 2 and Ong Bak 3.
MY CALL: When a martial arts movie does not deliver something totally new to your eyes, then you wasted your time and money and were most likely a victim of an over-hyped trailer. In a world where some of us grow tired of the same old kick flicks Ong-Bak is the fleck of gold you pray to find amid weather-worn pebbles and sand in your sifting pan. See this, then see The Protector, which I think is even better. [A-] IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: The Protector (2005), Chocolate (2008), District B-13 (2004; but NOT the sequel).
This is the movie that unleashed Tony Jaa upon the world as a star rather than a stunt man. In clothes Jaa may look like a 15-year old school boy. But he fights like a wiry-muscled rabid Outbreak monkey and tumbles like a Soviet gymnast as he displays his utterly savage mastery of elbow blunt force trauma to the head. Jaa seems little different from his Hong Kong kung fu counterparts with a name (which is sometimes silly) for every technique. He plays a young lad named Ting, who was recently awarded some sort of village defender title as a result of covering himself with mud, racing other villagers up a tree in a capture-the-flag race, and pushing a few guys thirty feet to the ground like some teen bully who went to school with “The Situation” and Pauly D in Jersey.
We know we have a movie story when some bad guy steals the head of Ong-Bak (a Buddha statue). Ting volunteers to recover the stolen head armed with his muay thai skills, a vial of stale herbs and a crumbled up sandwich bag of cash (which is demonstrably the combined wealth of the entire village, whose poverty was way oversold). Ting starts by locating his city-convert cousin, Humlae, who makes a living as a small-time crook. Humlae quickly steals Ting’s “save Ong-Bak” cash stash and runs off to make some bets at the local fight club. Followed by Ting, Humlae wastes no time fooling Ting into the fighting ring where apparently American Spring-breakers are making bets. By the way, this fight club is owned by our resident Ong-Bak-head-stealing bad guy, a wheelchair-bound geriatric with an electronic voicebox who smokes through a stoma hole. Classic!
“Yeah! In the face!”
The movie takes a while to build momentum, but when some loan-sharks come looking for Humlae things get really fun with a chase scene in the city. After an impressive array of very creative hurdles over and through various moving obstacles, Ting further wows us with yet more jaw-dropping acrobatics. I’ve seen Jackie Chan do a couple of serious stunts over the course of a whole movie. But Jaa matches Jackie’s whole movie stunt quota in a few minutes during this chase. The choreographers and set designers must have worked together very hard to weave this obstacle course. For me, the “holy shit” moment struck when Jaa did an aerial cart-wheel between two panes of glass. Contrary to Chan, we see little humor. But there is one priceless moment that I don’t want to over-explain, so I’ll just give you three words: “Knives for sale.” Good timing and brutal irony give this single grinning clip of the movie a solid Bugs Bunny/Road Runner flair.
Jaa can execute stunts like no other.
Yes. He DID just leap through a three-foot coil of barbed wire.
(Ong-Bak chase scene clip that includes the above and below images in action)
And yes. Jaa “could” have gone around this. But aren’t you glad he didn’t?
Jaa’s level of integration of free-running and acrobatics with martial arts is rare and, frankly, he makes it look effortless. Stunts that I’ve never seen before are in no shortage in this movie. (I’m saying that after watching Jackie Chan movies for more than twenty years!) Like a good martial arts movie, it’s all about the stunts and fight scenes and we are only occasionally inconvenienced with the reminder of Ting’s duty to recover the Ong-Bak head.
The major fighting action takes place back at the fight club where we meet combatants with goofy names like Ali, Big Bear, and an ex-boybander who looks like Howie (seriously) from the Backstreet Boys. The boybander is named Mad Dog for his predisposition for getting “smashy” with random, improvised weapons. Here we see the bulk of the combat choreography, which is more brutal than carefully planned. Rather than having long technique exchanges with elaborate striking, blocking and counterstriking, we instead see a more abrupt, painful execution of elbows and knees to the head and chest. Then flying knees to the chest and double elbows drilling down on the skull.
Here’s one of the crazies that Jaa faces more than once in the movie. Look at this guy. He has the best damned “crazy eyes” I’ve ever seen! And, yup, that’s a saw he’s using to attack Jaa.
The third act (acts one and two being the chase and fight club, respectively) takes place at a cave lair of sorts where Jaa showcases his ability to perform tandem targeted 540’s, a couple of 720’s, and some 540 and 720 horizontal corkscrew-flair check-kicks. When you’re watching the last 20 minutes of the movie and see a whole lot of acrobatic movies you can’t name, that’s what those are.
Tony Jaa is the greatest gift that martial arts has given us in a long time. Watch this movie!
Stay tuned for a warning about the sequels.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: The Unborn (1991)
MY CALL: Not good. Not bad. But it satisfied my Sunday afternoon bad-horror itch. It’s endearing looking back at 1991 and seeing how they thought the genomics project and what they loosely call “protein synthesis” would change us into 51-chromosomed mutant-baby-rearing hosts. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: The sequel, but I haven’t seen it. Also, perhaps, It’s Alive (1974 over the 2008 remake). SIDEBAR: Other horror movies of the same name include The Unborn (2009; which I saw and recommend) with Gary Oldman and Odette Yustman/Anabel being haunted by a Dibbuk-demon and The Unborn (2004, Thailand; which I have not seen) in which a drug-addict wakes up in a hospital 10 weeks pregnant.
Virginia Marshall (Scream Queen Brooke Adams; 1985’s The Stuff, 1983’s The Dead Zone, 1978’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers) and her husband Brad (Jeff Hayenga; Center Stage, a lot of small TV roles) visit a fertility clinic for a consultation with the very optimistic Dr. Meyerling (James Karen; The Pursuit of Happyness). They get right to treatment and then right to baby-making in a surprisingly brief, fully-clothed rockingchair-sex scene.
Virginia becomes emotionally and sexually aggressive, even violent, as her behavior becomes less rational and more psychotic. Meanwhile, we encounter strange events linked to Dr. Meyerling’s other patients, including his curious work in genomics and several unsolved domestic deaths. The storytelling, for 80s-ish horror, isn’t bad at all. Not like the slap-dash, thrown-together style of most (generally cheaper) flicks of the era (e.g., The Nesting, The Sentinel) or the truly campy and trashy (e.g., Breeders, Mutant Hunt). However, the story is quite simple: couple goes to fertility clinic, weird things start happening, and then come the evil monster babies. It’s a bit disappointing how there’s really nothing to it.
While she looks disturbed, let’s be real. They’re “always” cute when they’re yours.
While not quite the over-gross-out gory and nudity-rampant exploitation flicks of the time, The Unborn takes advantage of the sensitivity of pregnancy including attempts at physically traumatic do-it-yourself abortion, images of violent birth through the abdomen, wet fetus attacks, a disturbing-looking murderous premature infant, and kittenicide (the official, legal term for the premeditated murder of a kitten).
This set was clearly chosen to scare women out of abortion. And, hey, is that Hall & Oats performing the pre-abortion exam? So that’s what they did to pay the bills when they stopped making records.
![[unborn+offspring.jpg]](https://i0.wp.com/3.bp.blogspot.com/_gESD1wkyrz8/SmwX43opYrI/AAAAAAAAEHI/9aNM7VTGJls/s1600/unborn%2Boffspring.jpg)
Now THAT is an evil baby!
The best part of the movie had to be the completely random sighting of a triple-amputee dwarf laying down on a skateboard and cruising through an alley, but not without “standing up” for a moment and smiling at our female lead. Another pleasant surprise was two small roles filled by Kathy Griffin and Lisa Kudrow.
Kathy Griffin driving her prego-partner insane with baby yoga…
![[unborn+mothers.jpg]](https://i0.wp.com/3.bp.blogspot.com/_gESD1wkyrz8/SmwYO-TNSRI/AAAAAAAAEHQ/6lQbYuClUNc/s1600/unborn%2Bmothers.jpg)
The consequence of pushing baby yoga on someone too hard…
All in all, this was entertaining. Slow, but with some welcomed grins.
Share this post:
The Dark Knight Rises and Hof replies
Spoiler Warning!
Do
Not
Read
This
If
You
Want
to know everything about
The Dark Knight Rises.
Following my review of The Dark Knight Rises, MFF writer John Leavengood and I started pecking away at what we liked and disliked about the movie. Suffice to say, I liked more and John disliked more. As a result, John summarized his issues in his “Breakdown Part 1” to which I’m now replying…
First and foremost I understand your thoughts on The Dark Knight Rises: Breakdown Part 1. It is a big flawed film that dares to swing for the fences beyond the fences. It also gives plenty of ammunition for a hilarious roundtable discussion. However, the issues you have with the film did not bother me. I had other issues that I will write about here. Also, I will discuss the gripes that you had with my review. I did love your thoughts about Bane catching a Batman punch because I was a bouncer for years and I realized I shouldn’t try to catch drunk indie kid punches…..However, one night while bouncing in St. Petersburg my friend Jeff did catch a punch that was headed my way. This act of bravery was met by another punch which connected with Jeff’s head because he was too busy saving my head from being concussed.
However, it is awesome that Cillian Murhpy AKA Scarecrow returns in this film. I love the character. He is a survivor. I would love to see a film where JGL battles him. It would be a perfect first time villain and prove that Mr. 500 Days of Summer has crime fighting chops.
First, I can’t belive you left out the Wall Street scene. I left it out of my original review because of spoiler warnings but I feel like enough time has passed to where I can unleash the spoilers. So, Bane and his crew attack Wall Street, kill some people and whack a woman in the face with a motorcycle helmet. Then, they steal a lot of information and bankrupt Bruce Wayne…….The next day Morgan Freeman tells him it would take a long time to get his money back. NO IT WOULDN”T! HE WOULD GET HIS MONEY BACK IMMEDIATELY. A dude in a baboon mask robbed the financial institution. I’m pretty certain people would get a mulligan.
Second, When people are forced to die via Ra Ra they have to walk on ice. The people quickly fall through until Batman appears and everybody seems cool about their precarious footing. They even feel good enough to light a flare on thin ice…. Huh?
Third, When did Bane have time to fly to India to drop Batman into a secret prison? Time has a way to slowing down in this film.
Now to Mr. Leavengoods feeling towards the film.
Leavengood: Then there was Anne Hathaway. I have nothing good to say about her as Catwoman other than “nice ass.” I have nothing bad to say about her other than she was utterly forgettable to me and I would prefer that she wasn’t in the movie at all—despite the fact that she was written into the complicated plot like a keystone planted in the arch of a bridge
Anne Hathaway was necessary for the plot. She represented an outsider who initially supported the uprising but then realized that it was insane. She did it for herself and eventually was won over by Batman and decided to put her selfish attitudes aside and support Gotham. She has a massive character arc as a naive yet confident woman who revived Batman’s mojo and became a better person. Her personality evolved over time and gave Batman a woman who replaced Rachel Dawes. COMPLETELY NECESSARY! Plus, her presence helped on promotional posters.
2 Leavengood:. A comprehensive trilogy. That’s not a success. That’s a prerequisite to even standing a chance at success.
If you’ve read my Bad Movie Tuesday Trilogy (which you have). You would know that they majority of third films have failed at providing a suitable conclusion to a series. Remember when Neo rocked the world and Jack Sparrow became a worldwide phenomena? Now, remember the third films where they pooped (technical term) on all the good will. The Dark Knight Rises shows that actions have consequences. It doesn’t do it perfectly but when you are dressed as a bat and fighting crime and you’ve killed the leader of the greatest crime syndication in the world there will be consequences. The Batman becomes bigger than himself and allows the surprisingly well-groomed policemen (who have been trapped underground for months) to take charge and run headlong into machine gun fire……Remember that simple is not always easy. I look at this trilogy as a Christopher Nolan graphic novel and not a recreation of established works.
Let me comment on John’s final quote:
Leavengood: Overall , opposite to the Hof, would call this movie completely unengaging, not a moment thrilling or exciting, and only a good conclusion to the trilogy when present in the form of storyboard notes. After the first hour I was honestly waiting for this movie to end. What a horrible thing to say.
John…Can you honestly say that you didn’t love the return of the Scarecrow? Or, What about when he finally makes the jump? I know in conversation you said the messages were forced fed but I loved that Batman had to be afraid of death to defeat Bane. I love that the cops were outgunned and outnumbered but still charged the machine guns. This was HUGE filmmaking that didn’t make a lick of sense (she should have flooded the reactor immediately) but still remained the vision of a man who revitalized a dead series. He deserved to make this film and we should appreciate a series that has been brilliant (Joker, Scarecrow), confusing (Bane, Rachel Dawes) and ultimately fulfilling (Batman landing a flexible woman and seeing Alfred). These films will be analyzed, loved and argued…which makes it wonderful.
Can’t wait to hear what you say about Bane…..
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: The Watch and the 14%
The Watch is not a bad film. The Watch is a generic film. I believe that somewhere amidst all the conversations about genitalia there was a plot. But, the finished product is a combination of improv, Costco promotion and an odd subplot about Ben Stiller’s impotence. There are several laughs to be had but it feels like this is a $70 million runaway train. The best moments involve Vince Vaughn graciously stuffing Jonah Hill full of pudding and Richard Ayoade’s impeccable line delivery. The film has taken a beating by the critics and is sitting at 14% as I write this. I understand fully why this film is being critically dogpiled. It is more of the same and it should have been so much more. I’d compare this film to the 2004 Olympic bronze medal winning American basketball team. They had all the talent in the world but lost to more cohesive teams that played with a solid game plan and tenacity. The 2004 team left with a third place finish and much head scratching. All the talent in the world means nothing if the game plan goes out the window.
The movie revolves around four men who start a Neighborhood Watch after a Costco employee is killed and his skin is stolen. The movie is an excuse to get funny men together and have them pee into beer cans, talk sex fantasies and take pictures involving the violation of a dead alien.
Stiller is uptight, Vaughn is Vaughn, Hill is the wildcard and Ayoade is a breath of fresh air. Together they improv constantly and leave you baffled as to how this movie cost $70 million. The improv provides some funny zingers but allows less time for the plot to unfold. It is like they passed the ball around but then they realized the shot clock was running out so they threw up a three pointer from half court and missed. The improv also keeps the characters from developing. The director Akiva Schaffer said he ended up with 45 minutes of footage for a four sentence scene. That time could have been used to flesh out the plot of add more drama to Ben Stiller’s impotence (Keep reading).
The most bizarre part of the film is not the aliens or huge budget. It is the subplot involving Ben Stiller’s reluctance to tell his lovely wife that he is impotent. He lies to her as she is trying to have a child. Stiller has known about the impotence for 18 months and treats his wife terribly because of it. It is a strange story to be telling in a film about alien invasion. A lot of stuff revolves around the downstairs area. Most of the humor feels lazy when the people involved have starred in Old School, Tropic Thunder, 21 Jump Street, The IT Crowd etc..
I have no ill will towards this film. I understand why it went bad. Too much money, too much time and too much freedom. Judging from The Watch’s friday gross (4.5 million) the movie should make about $18 million (The movie made less than expected with $14 million). Take off the second week drop of 50% and this movie will have a hard time making its budget back. I hope these actors learn from this and come out like the 2008 US basketball team and win the gold. There is hope for the future. Stiller is slowly working towards Zoolander 2, Vaughn has reunited with Owen Wilson for The Internship and Jonah Hill is planning a 21 Jump Street sequel.
Watch The Watch……..on Blu Ray
Share this post:
This photo was taking during a discussion between Bale and Nolan before filming [not really]. Bale (to Nolan): “Are you sure you’re ready for me to don the uniform one last time? Or would the writers like a little more time?”
And the marathon of Batman posts continues. It all started before the film’s release with our MoviesFilmsandFlix Roundtable discussion of the trailer. From there…
The Hof recently wrote a rather positive review about The Dark Knight Rises (2012). I am not alone (e.g., Harry’s AICN review) in saying that I profoundly disagree and found the film to be, by and large, a huge disappointment—all be it well-scored and beautifully shot. Until this film, I was someone who said that Christopher Nolan could do no wrong…sadly, this is my opinion no more. I will present some elements of the film evidenced by The Hof as “good” and present my case against its merit. As The Hof got to set the stage, this is the first of my two-part counter-argument in the case of Hof v Leavengood on the battlefield of The Dark Knight Rises. This first part assesses all things non-Bane (without spoilers), whereas part two will address all things Bane (with spoilers). Here we go…
The Hof: “The biggest problem with The Dark Knight Rises was that it had to follow The Dark Knight.” Also “after the first trailer was released you started to hear grumblings about Bane’s voice being inaudible. The problem was fixed but it showed that the movie was under a microscope.”
Response: Not so. I was looking forward to The Dark Knight Rises, not because of The Dark Knight, but because both Batman Begins AND The Dark Knight were spectacular, even if The Dark Knight was a more notably perfect form of spectacular. And fanboys will always be fanboys and place such movies under microscopic analysis regardless of the quality of a single prequel. Maybe it was a little worse here. But there’s a new Superman reboot coming up. Do we really think they won’t drum up reasons for super-high or way-pessimistic expectations on their own regardless of the absence of other data on the franchise? Of course they will. That’s what they do (or more fairly, what “we” do even if we often try to hide it). The Bane’s voice thing was frustrating. But to consider that as evidence of the overall quality of the film is simply word vomitters talking for the sake of talking.
People worried that no villain could escape the shadow cast by Heath Ledger’s Joker.
Nolo contendere: We seem to agree on Bane’s “Roadhouse” fighting style. But Batman did it, too. It was doubly awful seeing this two throwing a marathon of wild haymakers at each other like bar brawlers. Is that how Batman was taught to fight in The League of Shadows? I think not. Even when he’s enraged he shouldn’t be fighting like that. I found it unreasonable and, possibly, due to Hardy’s difficulty with fight choreography which was made apparent by his shorter fight scenes in Warrior (I have to thank The Hof for that knowledge).
Right here, a moment glimpsed from the trailer, we thought we’d be in for an epic fight…
What we end up getting is a clear mismatch. You know whose punches are effortlessly “caught” by their opponents? The folks who never have a chance!
The Hof: “I was troubled by Batman not being in the film for huge chunks … However, these are small gripes in the big picture.”
Response: I will not consider my issue a “small gripe” when Batman is absent from sooo much of this movie. Unforgivable, unacceptable, and boring. Yes. I found the movie boring.
The Hof: “Where the movie succeeds is tying together all three of the Batman stories into a cohesive whole.”
Response: That’s not a success. That’s a prerequisite to even standing a chance at success. To not do this would simply be failure on the part of the writers and, contrarily, to do this does not necessarily imply a victory; only an absence of the specifically negative. So I won’t call it great that they did it; I’ll just admit that they did their jobs. At the end of the day, tying the movies together may have been accomplished with 20 sentences on a whiteboard flow chart.
The Hof: “Christopher Nolan manages to make the new additions three-dimensional and likable.” And “I was fully expecting to be annoyed by Anne Hathaway … her portrayal of Selina Kyle is a mature, intelligent and flexible… The most important part of the puzzle is the addition of Joseph Gordon Levitt’s cop character.”
Response: I disagree about many of the new characters (Bane to be discussed in the Part Two post). The financial bad guys were awkward and unconvincing. They really just subtracted enjoyment for me. Speaking on unconvincing characters who spoiled the movie for me, I don’t even think the pre-existing characters were well-served. Then Alfred uncharacteristically leaves Bruce. That’s not the Alfred I know! He would stand by Bruce through ANYTHING while offering his conflicted heartfelt concern. They addition of one line like “I can’t take it anymore, Master Bruce” is simply not going to cut it for me in terms of character development. I acknowledge that they tried to build up to it, but I think that swing for the fences didn’t even get them on base. Then there was Anne Hathaway. I have nothing good to say about her as Catwoman other than “nice ass.” I have nothing bad to say about her other than she was utterly forgettable to me and I would prefer that she wasn’t in the movie at all—despite the fact that she was written into the complicated plot like a keystone planted in the arch of a bridge. My harping is curbed, though, by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I was confused about his involvement at first—playing it off as “well, Nolan just likes him.” Then his role in the ending made me smile. That was the only part of the movie that truly satisfied me at all.
One of many forgettably bland exchanges between Bruce Wayne and Catwoman. I didn’t think it was possible to screw up the old “enemies meet on the dance floor” sexy exchange of threats and innuendo.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He plays the only character in the film who wasn’t irresponsibly written–or underwritten.
The Hof: The Dark Knight Rises is a marvel of IMAX beauty. It is occasionally frustrating, often beautiful and always engaging. Do not put this movie under a microscope. DKR is a thrilling conclusion to an intelligent and ground breaking super hero trilogy.”
Response: Overall , opposite to the Hof, would call this movie completely unengaging, not a moment thrilling or exciting, and only a good conclusion to the trilogy when present in the form of storyboard notes. After the first hour I was honestly waiting for this movie to end. What a horrible thing to say.
My most MAJOR issues were with Bane and all things Bane. That will be addressed later—in a more meta-analytical superfan context—and will include spoilers. But by the time it’s posted, you should all have seen The Dark Knight Rises, right?
I am intentionally sparring with an unbaited sword to incite reader comments. So, please, post your comments for or against the quality of this film. The gloves are off!
Share this post:
Trailer Talk: REC 3: Genesis (2012)
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude! REC 3: Genesis looks like it’s gonna’ be something special!
The basic plot is: A couple’s wedding day turns into a horrific events as some of the guests start showing signs of a strange illness.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ORIGINAL TRAILER (in Spanish)
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE US TRAILER (well, yeah, it’s in English)
You should really watch both of these trailers. They are quite different and show different aspects of the film. The Spanish trailer shows more clips and gore from the wedding hall, the American trailer is more about introducing us to our heroine, Clara (played by fledgling Scream Queen Leticia Dolera).
International Release Date: Already happened. March 30, 2012 (Spain)
U. S. Release Date: September 7, 2012. But you can see it on Video on Demand August 2nd.
This is a prequel to the original REC (2007). There’s hardly any need to address the plot beyond that, other than to point out that human patient zero first shows symptoms while at a wedding. This makes for some nice scenes of rampant gore jettisoning across the room onto elegant clothes in the grand hall of a mansion. Why not? Sounds fun to me.
The gore looks really good and really fun. Toss in a chick in a guts-stained bridal dress holding a chainsaw to a zombie’s head and, let’s be honest, you’ve just earned your first star.
We get to see a chick go from this happy bride [above] to this horrified scream queen [below]…
…to this chick who’s clearly had enough and isn’t gonna’ take it any more [below].
If you liked the previous installments then you should like this. Director Paco Plaza directed all three REC films and wrote all of the American and Spanish installments of the franchise. It’s all about consistency. If you weren’t a fan of the earlier films—well, there are plenty of other zombie movies out there, aren’t there?
HEADS UP: I understand that REC 4: Apocalypse is already underway. These folks have set a Resident Evil-like wildfire. So far, the first two RECs have been Americanized in the Quarantine franchise (2008, 2011). Based on the apparent production value of this one, the trend will continue and you won’t have to read English subtitles if you don’t want to. But if you do, you get twice the zombie movies out of this insta-remake franchise.
Share this post:
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Where did this movie come from? Where did the director find Quvenzhane Wallis? Do people really use truck beds for boats?
Beasts of the Southern Wild is the story of a young girl named Hushpuppy who lives with her father in an area on the outskirts of Louisiana called The Bathtub. The Bathtub is a self-contained world full of poverty, thriftiness and community. the citizens kill their livers with booze, live day-to-day and love seafood. Life goes on normally until a massive storm hits that changes the way of life in the lower coastal area. From there the movie dives deeper into the bathtub until the real world comes looking for them. All of this is seen through Hushpuppie’s eyes. Hushpuppy is played by six-year-old Quvenzhane Wallis who is incredibly natural and intelligent. Wallis is a precocious little dynamo who has a vivid imagination for living in such a small world.
Her father does not help her much in the way of development. His hard-drinking keeps him away for days and he constantly tells stories of Hushpuppies mom who left them years ago. His accounts of a woman so hot she makes water boil add to the mystically real life that these people live. You can tell he loves his daughter but can only teach her the bare necessities of survival.
This film is proof that budgets are not needed to achieve a creative vision. Benh Zeitlin does more with his directorial debut than some directors achieve. He creates a pure vision that is uniquely his own. The film reminds me of the David Gordon Green film George Washington. They create bigger than life visions for very small places. Both men used largely untrained actors and that leads to the naturalness that these films depend on.
I was never emotionally taken by this film but I appreciated the visuals and wildness of Beasts of the Southern Wild. The director has created a memorable vision of a world unknown to many and characters who are strong of will. This movie is like a very shaky dream. There is so much going on you can’t remember all of the visuals flying at you.
Share this post:
Stranded (2001)
MY CALL: Mars has a secret, but it may not be worth the suffering through this film to get to it. [C-/D] WHAT TO WATCH INSTEAD: Mission to Mars (2000), Red Planet (2000). IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: Moon (2009), Sunshine (2007), Alien (1979), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).
The story swiftly begins when our crew crashes during their approach to Mars. The low budget is evident from the beginning—largely due to the writing. The dialogue is terrible, as is its delivery and the ill-felt sense of urgency. Major problems are recognized as futile, someone immediately asks a question or suggests an overly simplistic solution, and in a total of ten seconds there is a solution—then wash, rinse and repeat for each problem they may encounter for the film’s duration. Nothing like the nerve-tugging troubleshooting scenes of Apollo 13 when Gary Sinise was trying to beat the clock so that Tom Hanks and Bill Paxton wouldn’t run out of oxygen…and they were much closer than the 26 month journey from Earth to Mars.
“I just used this calculator and, by my calculations…we’re HOW far from Earth!?! FML!!!”
“Listen to me. I’m a scientist. I’ve thought of everything!” –Vincent Gallo delivering, yes indeed, a direct quote from this stillborn menace of a film
More significant problems come when the five-man crew faces a moral dilemma: the oxygen, food, water and energy stores can only allow two individuals to survive long enough to be rescued…so three of them have to go (to their death, evidently). Naturally, this is where the camaraderie and trust go out the window. After a deliberation that lasted even less time than would drawing straws, the three “unnecessary” crew members suit up and leave the module to “walk around” until, I suppose, they die.
Where on this lifeless death orb shall we venture next as we run out of oxygen?
To give meaning to their final hours and to salvage some victory from this failed trip, the captain records their land travel in hopes of capturing something useful. So off the wander, trying to fill screen time with insightful lines—and failing miserably.
Then they come across a cave, at which point the two in the space module have lost contact and camera feed and have just learned that the module’s energy won’t last more than 12 hours—down from two and half years!—by the time an alarm goes off because of some leak or something.
Believe it or not, a pertinent quote.
“Too bad we didn’t bring an archaeologist with us.” He said when gazing upon the greatest discovery in human history. “An archaeologist would have killed us in cold blood for not taking precautions before coming in here and distorting everything with our fingerprints.” She replied, her body completely encapsulated in a f***ing space suit! Idiot writers.
As she comes across an even greater discovery (Than the greatest discovery in human history that they discovered five minutes prior? Nice pacing, writers.) she is practically apathetic! Anyone would have been stunned—anyone!!!
This unfortunate film featured some recognizable names, and some not. Vincent Gallo (Buffalo 66) is intolerably annoying, more as an actor than a character. I actually can’t tell if the character is annoying, or meant to be, or not, since Gallo did such a shit job. But not as much as Maria de Medeiros’ (Pulp Fiction)child-like demeanor; she can’t even say “shut up” or drop an F-bomb without it sounding forced. But she did have the only genuine, intentionally funny moment. Joaquim de Almeida (Desperado, Fast Five) offers the most tolerable performance. Maria “Luna” Lidon narrates, acts and directs—she tries so hard, but the narrations are dry and you never feel the “deepness” you know she’s trying to achieve; it’s more of a kiddie pool than an oceanic abyss. The worst actor by far is “Herbert” played by some nobody. As they die off their deaths are so agonizingly bad to watch that you’re not sure it was worth it to not have to watch them act any more.
SPOILER ALERT!!! They can breath! How ironic since 30 minutes ago one of you ran out of oxygen and asphyxiated in your spacesuit. Oh, and that’s not Mars’ secret.
All this to consider, I felt as stupid as the filmmakers for watching this POS. It was a good idea. But wait! That idea was done twice just the year before (2000’s Mission to Mars and Red Planet). Speaking of which…
Has there ever been a space mission movie that wasn’t met with catastrophe? 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Sunshine (2007), Planet of the Apes (1968, 2001), Apollo 13 (1995), Apollo 18(2011), Alien (1979) to Prometheus (2012), Pandorum (2009), The Event Horizon (1997), Mission to Mars (2000), Red Planet (2000)… Seems like even if the movie starts with someone returning from a space mission something bad has to happen, as in The Astronaut’s Wife (1999) or Species (1995).
If you actually want to see this it’s on Netflix streaming. If looking for it online, include the year in your search as there are about 20 movies of the same name on IMDB. But don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Share this post:
The Dark Knight Rises
The Dark Knight Rises is a massively ambitious film that swings for the fences. It has been several days since I saw the film and I am still breaking it down and absorbing the final Batman. My conclusion is that it is frustrating, over-important, intelligent and colossal.
It is complicated, gloomy and open for interpretation. You have to think about this film. The issues of fear, class and terrorism run rampant throughout and you have to wonder why Hollywood millionaires feel the need to tell this story. Between this and The Avengers this summer has been a tale of two comic stories. The Avengers was wonderful but it felt managed because of all the money, egos and producers. The Dark Knight Rises feels orchestrated and championed by one man. You could tell that Avengers had Whedon DNA but he had to give every character their moment to shine and create room for future films. Nolan is concluding his trilogy by introducing new characters, leaving Batman out for massive chunks and making class warfare an important aspect. At times the movie feels self-important and could be retitled The Dark Knight Makes Big Speeches. However, Nolan has earned the right to do whatever he wants and he succeeded in not dismantling the hype train like Spidey 3 and X-Men 3 did.
The biggest problem with The Dark Knight Rises was that it had to follow The Dark Knight. Expectations were raised to unnatainable levels.Fanboys ran rampant with Joker love and they were ready to declare the third film that greatest thing ever without watching it. However, after the first trailer was released you started to hear grumblings about Bane’s voice being inaudible. The problem was fixed but it showed that the movie was under a microscope. I too examined the film too closely. I was bothered by Bane fighting like he was an extra in Road House. I was troubled by Batman not being in the film for huge chunks and I still wonder why Marion Cotillard’s character was so underwritten. However, these are small gripes in the big picture.
Where the movie succeeds is tying together all three of the Batman stories into a cohesive whole. The theme of these films has been fear. Batman Begins started with the Scarecrow then moved to the anarchy of the Joker and now into the cruelness of Bane. A man who wants you to have hope only to destroy it. All three of these men use their powers in different ways to paralyze the populace with fear.
My biggest worry about this film was the addition of all the new characters. Several other films have been hampered by the addition of too many people. For instance, Pirates 3, Spider Man 3 and X-Men 3 all faltered under the weight of too many new faces. Christopher Nolan manages to make the new additions three-dimensional and likable. Tom Hardy is able to capture the frightening physicality of Bane. Behind the creepy baboon looking mask is an intelligent and cruel man who likes to make people suffer. Bane is a physical match for Batman and isn’t afraid to throw down by himself. However, behind the mask lies a hidden weakness bound to be exploited.
I was fully expecting to be annoyed by Anne Hathaway representing the 99%. However, her portrayal of Selina Kyle is a mature, intelligent and flexible. She walks the line between right and wrong and eventually regrets getting what she asks for. Hathaway is a perfect foil for Bale and together they develop an attraction based on equality and muscle tone.
The most important part of the puzzle is the addition of Joseph Gordon Levitt’s cop character named John Blake. He is smart, capable and feisty enough to team up with Gary Oldman’s commissioner Gordon. His story goes hand in hand with Bruce Wayne’s and you wish he could have his own spin-off. I love how JGL can be equal parts nice, tough, angry, indie and capable. I won’t give away any more….
The Dark Knight Rises is a marvel of IMAX beauty. It is occasionally frustrating, often beautiful and always engaging. Do not put this movie under a microscope. DKR is a thrilling conclusion to an intelligent and ground breaking super hero trilogy.
Movies, Films & Flix 