John’s Horror Corner: Galaxy of Terror (1981), one of the stupidest and BEST bad 80s Sci-Horror has to offer!
MY CALL: Stupidest, most senseless, bad 80’s B-horror-turned-D-horror I may have ever seen. I very much enjoyed hating this schizophrenically architected flick. For the bad horror lovers out there, I give this a solid “B.” If you actually enjoy movies with plots, “F-.” WHAT TO WATCH INSTEAD: If you love hilariously goofy horror, but demand solid special effects, then try Final Destination 5, Piranha 3D, Shark Night 3D. IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: If you like hilariously goofy horror, love 80’s horror, and don’t require solid effects, then turn to Contamination, Inseminoid, Of Unknown Origin. Want totally stupid, low budget, super gory, and modern? Then you should visit A beginner’s Guide to Tokyo Shock cinema. It’s life-changing. DRINKING MOVIE STATUS: Whether new or old, deliberately funny or not, these movies are meant to be enjoyed with your favorite adult beverage. Cheers!
This Roger Corman cult classic includes some other classics, namely Robert Englund (Nightmare on Elmstreet series) and Sid Haig (most Rob Zombie movies). Welcome to a universe in which some weird, energy-based life-form (about as plausible as the ones from December’s upcoming The Darkest Hour) is in charge of, as it seems anyway, everything. This odd “ruler” makes no sense anywhere in the movie. Moving on to the next senseless items…
In response to some sort of distress signal—sound familiar? (The Event Horizon, Alien)—a team of space soldiers travels to the edge of the universe to a dilapidated colony. Complete with Alien-esque painted backgrounds, it’s as if Corman was trying to produce a low budget Alien sequel. The team is jumpy, can’t handle the sight of a dead body, would sooner burn corpses than investigate their cause of death (which is why they’re there!!!), and show signs of space madness in the first fifteen minutes of the movie. Much as in Aliens, which actually was not yet released, their female captain has seen this before. Probably because she saw it when she played Ripley in the original!
So the team approaches some junk pile of a giant pyramid. Nobody panic, though. The team psychic detects no life within. The edifice looks organic, maybe like an exoskeleton, maybe like the ship-construct in Alien or the lair in Aliens. Lingering unnoticed in the shadows are odd insectoid monsters. One rather hungry such monster-denizen in a hole has fleshy assault tentacles like the antlion-beast from the later, more serious release Enemy Mine. Someone fire the psychic!
If the movie isn’t making sense yet, what follows will NOT help at all. Sid Haig has these strange, crystal bladed weapons. They animate and attack him. Then he cuts off his arm and it viciously proceeds to go all Evil Dead 2 on him. Wait, that didn’t clarify the plot for you? Well, next, a some carrion worm that was feeding on his severed arm like a maggot suddenly grows into a 30’ long slimy caterpillar-thing which tears the clothes off of a cute space cadet co-ed and, apparently, rapes her! Huh? Naturally, the first crew member to discover her burns her apparently uninjured body before even checking her vitals!
The movie continues to make, somehow, yet less sense as we’re introduced to magic portals, Robert Englund fighting himself, and someone getting ligated to death. This movie ends pointlessly with such a poor attempt at a twist that I imagine the writer was missing part of his brain from a massive motorcycle-accident-induced headwound. It includes an uber-awful zombie action sequence.
This is, nigh doubtlessly, the stupidest horror movie I’ve ever seen. The movie’s not dumb in the sense that it sucks. But stupid in the sense that…well, the writer must have been stupid. Either way, it was really fun to watch and mock, making it a fun bad horror flick. The only thing that made sense out of this movie was that James Cameron (Avatar) did some camera work and Bill Paxton (HBO’s Big Love) decorated the set. Then, they went on to make Aliens. And Grace Zabroski (this movie’s captain) later played Bill Paxton’s mother in Big Love. I guess this movie set turned out to be a breeding ground for networking and future talent. Go figure.
Share this post:
Best Naked Fights of Film
The public demanded it, so here I must deliver the greatest naked fights of film. In the spirit of good taste (and family internet filters) I have not included clips of the actual fights. You’ll have to hunt them down or rent the movies on your own. However, if you managed to miss any of these movies, then SHAME ON YOU! You should probably order them all on Blu-Ray from Amazon immediately.
RUNNER-UP for Best Funny Naked Fight
WHO: Leslie Chou (Ken Jeong) vs. The Wolf Pack
WHY THIS FIGHT WAS AWESOME: Dude? Naked, tiny Asian guy ninja-leaps from the trunk of the car and crotch-faces an innocent Wolf Pack bystander. Follow that up with some naked piggy-backing, crowbar-fu, and trash talk and you have got yourself an unforgettable assault.
RUNNER-UP for Best Serious Naked Fight
Point Break
WHO: Keanu Reeves versus the crazy, full-frontal-nude drug dealer’s girlfriend.
WHY THIS FIGHT WAS AWESOME: Besides the fact that the chick was violent, hot and naked, this scene did a good job of showing how a regular, desperate, possibly coked-up chick can opportunistically turn the tide when your guard is down. She grabs Keanu by the head with both hands, clutches his hair, and slams his head into a bathroom vanity mirror—while she’s NAKED! Then, rather than run as most law-breakers would from a cop, the crazy bitch leans into him with more of a beating.
WINNER for Best Funny Naked Fight
Borat [nope, not writing the whole title]
WHO: Borat versus Azamat
WHY THIS FIGHT WAS AWESOME: This movie really tested the limits of the MPAA. Sacha Baren Cohen had a 300-pound, hairy, sweaty ass on his face. As in it clearly touched, rubbed, smeared, and whatever horrible else ON HIS FACE. He nearly got choked out by a fat asshole, literally. And did anyone count the number of extras who were in the same room as the nude fools? They ran through a banquet hall! This movie has what every single, dick-joke-loving college dude wants…something that will help him come up with more dick jokes!
WINNER for Best Serious Naked Fight
Eastern Promises
WHO: a bare-testicled Viggo Mortenson takes on the Russian mob’s biggest and baddest in a bath house steam room. This fight really stuck with me.
WHY THIS FIGHT WAS AWESOME: The choreography was cruelly realistic (here’s a clip about the making of the scene). Ever notice how in movies sword and knife fights result in a lot of tiny knicks that are so shallow that stitches wouldn’t even be necessary? That never happens in reality! When you get cut with a full-force swing across the abdomen or arm the result is a wee bit more than a red line with no blood-letting and you’ll likely be moving around a bit differently after some of your connective tissue has been disconnected. In this fight, when someone got stabbed, you winced, the victem reeled, and the stabber lost his balance from the reckless force behind the maneuver. Hitting people as hard as you can is simply exhausting and it hurts you, too. I can’t remember the last time I saw a fight scene that affected me so much. And, yeah, Viggo filmed it naked. Let’s add more vulnerability and intensity, shall we? Viggo, drop trow!
There were some close calls…
Alexander’s sexy bout boasted a heaving Rosario Dawson pressed against an awkwardly blond Colin Farrell. But there really wasn’t much of a fight there. She just threatened him with a blade to the throat, and then he said “do it,” and then they “did it.”
Then there was Elizabeth Berkley’s Nomi Malone, who kicks a performers ass at knife point in Showgirls. But again, not really a fight. She just caught him off guard (with her breasts and a switch blade), threatened to cut him, and kicked him in the face until her heart was content. No resistance whatsoever. Then again, some folks are into that BDSM business.
Oh, and how about when the topless zombie was chasing Jesse Eisenberg in Zombieland. Not much of a fight, but quite memorable. And Strippers vs Zombies was disqualified for obvious reasons.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: Punisher: War Zone
Roger Ebert described this film perfectly when he said “”Punisher: War Zone is one of the best-made bad movies I’ve seen.”
I won’t say this film is good. However, I will say that the final line is “Oh, great. Now I got brains on me.”
The first time I watched this film I turned it off. I just didn’t get it and disliked everything about it. However, my girlfriend and I took a trip this weekend and I downloaded a podcast called How Did This Get Made? The show is produced by Earwolf and features Paul Scheer (Piranha 3D), June Diane Raphael (Flight of the Conchords) and Jason Mantzoukas (The League). This particular podcast featured Patton Oswalt and the director of Punisher: War Zone. The podcast chronicled the making of this film and why it tanked so badly at the box office.
I began to realize that I missed the point the first time around. I wasn’t celebrating the excessive violence…I was thinking it was twenty years too late. I decided to give it another shot at redemption. I was annoyed at myself for letting this violent, great looking B-movie treasure go through the cracks. It wasn’t totally my fault that I didn’t like it. I just needed to hear it from the director’s point of view. This is a film that somewhat works yet shouldn’t have worked.
The director Lexi Alexander is a world champion kick boxer who directed the solid Green Street Hooligans. She knew nothing about The Punisher yet the studio wanted her for the third adaptation because she was cheap and had some street cred for directing an Oscar nominated short film. The day she was supposed to sign on was the day the murders happened at Virginia Tech. As she was watching the news she noticed that in the killer’s dorm room he had a poster of the Punisher.
So, instead of directing a realistic version of the comic book she directed a bat sh*t crazy adaptation. The film features cartoonish violence so abundant you wonder how many more people will die (83 by the Punisher) This is not the Dolph Lundgren version where he rides motorcycles through the sewers or the Thomas Jane origin Punisher. This is a Punisher where the main character takes a back seat to violence and mayhem.
This is a “lets kill everybody quickly and violent” version. A version where a guy fighting the Punisher is defending himself by using a chair…This chair is kicked and the leg goes into the henchman’s eye. There is also a scene where a guy is thrown into a glass crusher and instead of screaming in pain he screams “F**k you Castle! My face!”
This movie breaks the record for quickest decapitation …. The second kill occurs when the Punisher does a sweet somersault and slices off an old man’s head. The bad guys are having a nice dinner party when the Punisher comes crashing in and violently kills all of them. When I say “violently” I mean Violence so brutal it becomes violence multiplied by seven. It is not the serious ultra-violence (Clockwork Orange) realistic violence (Saving Private Ryan) or torture violence (Saw). It is violence turned up to 11. The things you see in this movie come straight out of the Punisher comic book (a fact I did not know).
A funny story was told on the podcast. The director included a meth addicted urban jumping gang in the film. The producers did not want to have these concrete jumpers because there were too many films using them (Live Free or Die Hard, Casino Royale). So, the director’s solution was to have the Punisher blow them up spectacularly with a grenade launcher. The victim was blown out of the air mid flip! I’ve never seen that before.
Punisher: War Zone was released in December and was absolutely pummelled by movie critics (Ebert loved it though). It also didn’t help that Punisher opened the same year as the Dark Knight and Iron Man. The problem is that they didn’t know all the kills were from the comic and the B-movie aesthetics went over their heads. If you knew nothing about this film and watched it with a bunch of New York film critics you would dislike this movie. However, if you and your friends got together you would bask in the violent badness and dig the flick despite its flaws and incredible violence.
If you like bad guys getting shot out of the air by grenade launchers you will love this film. I’m paraphrasing the Punisher when I say “Good, bad, I’m the one who kills people by head snaps, elbow drops, bullets, knives and kicks.
You’ve been warned. Watch the movie and tell me what you think.
Share this post:
Bridesmaids [a second opinion]
MY CALL: Nothing but laughs in this one. Very cleverly written. If you missed it, rent it soon! [A] IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: The Hangover, The Sweetest Thing, There’s Something About Mary. FYI: Mark reviewed this fresh out of the theaters.
I am growing to love Kristin Wiig. This…I Love You Man…And Jon Hamm…WOW! Serious as a heart attack in Mad Men and The Town, then goofy as can be in this and 30 Rock. If things weren’t funny enough, Megan (of Mike & Molly) does her Tom Arnold impression throughout the movie. The characters are great because the actors are awesome. Everyone delivered here.
This delightful movie features all-too-familiar sex scenes. It’s a satire of the satire that is modern single sex and the always-in-store charming morning after. Foreplay jokes abound, along with non-intercourse jokes which still manage to include semen and penises.
The movie runs two stories. One is the obvious movie plot advertised in the trailer. The other is Kristin Wiig’s thirty-something love life, or lack thereof. This additional thread had me a little worried as to whether it would detract from the main plot. Much to my pleasure it did not. The issues addressed were blunt and simple, but conveyed very honestly the frustrating game of denial and self-deprecation that can be thirty-something and single (or twenty- or forty-something and single at that).
It closes with a combination 80’s feel-good, pick-me-up meshed with absolutely awkward hilarity. Please put this on your list and enjoy it. I certainly did. For my closing argument, I’d like to include some of my favorite quotes from the movie. My real favorite couldn’t make this list because it’d spoil a few laughs…
1. “This is awkward. I really want you to go but I don’t know how to say it without sounding like a dick.”
2. “I’ve seen better tennis-playing in a tampon add.”
3. “Did he sleep over in your mouth?”
4. <<disgustingly horrifying gastrointestinal sound>> “I’m sorry. I won’t apologize. I’m not even confident on which end that came out of.”
5. “The other night I’m slaving away making a beautiful dinner for my family. My youngest boy comes in and says he wants to order pizza. I said no, we’re not ordering pizza tonight. He goes: Mom, why don’t you go and f@$& yourself? He’s nine.”
Share this post:
Like Crazy
This movie could have gone wrong in so many ways
1. Too Sappy……Like a corn syrup factory.
2. The girlfriend could have been one of those pixie/indie/free spirits that plague cinemas (Elizabethtown, Garden State, The Last Kiss…..Any film with Zach Braff)
3. The movie could have seemed fake….Super Indie fake….Like the kind of film where a fat dude writes a movie about a love he thinks would be ideal.
4. Too much dialogue……Only two movies can pull off too much dialogue and they are Before Sunrise and Before Sunset.
I can happily say that Like Crazy avoids all of those pitfalls and manages to become a natural/intimate film that feels real and heartbreaking while leaving the viewer with a feeling of hope.
Cheap, creative, well written and acted this film provided my girlfriend and I with a pleasurable night at the cinema. The movie doesn’t overstay its welcome or frustrate you with a vague indie ending.
The movie revolves around Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones in the trials and tribulations of first love. They fall in love cutely and continue their relationship amidst long distances, visa issues and multiple Baxters.
Sidenote: A Baxter is a person who is a placeholder until the film’s couple decides to finally get together. A perfect example is Cary Elwes in Liar Liar.
Watch this movie. Enjoy the characters. Appreciate the story. Never overstay your travel visa.
Share this post:
The Immortals
Mark and John here [John writing now] to bring you a tag-team review of The Immortals. I first saw this in 3D to appease a friend. I never enjoy 3D action movies as much as their 2D counterparts. Why, you might ask…because fast moving action like car crashes and fighting sequences get a bit blurry in 3D; the technology still hasn’t quite caught up with our stunt men. Explosions and scenery tend to look great, though. When I saw this in 3D I was wowed by the spectacles that Singh’s imagination had architected. The skies and oceans looked pleasingly crisp. The combat effects also were designed for 3D (especially at the very end!) with spinning, dismembered body parts shuttling through the air jettisoning gore in their turbulent wake. Despite my consistent favoritism to 2D for action scenes, I couldn’t have been happier.
Then I met up with Mark and, happy to see this gorgeous movie again, we went to see it…this time in 2D. The previously crisp oceans and skies seemed to turn flatter-than-2D and awkwardly fake. The movie was still aesthetically pleasing, but the disparity in quality was unmerited. This movie was clearly made for 3D with no consideration as to how it would look it 2D–a problem which I have not encountered before with other 3D movies. At least, not to the point that I was bothered. The movie was still a lot of fun, increasingly so moving from beginning to end, but if you only saw this in 2D please, oh please, give it another shot in 3D. John, out. Mark will take it from here with the finer points of the movie…
The Immortals can be summed up in three words “style over substance.”
The movie looks great yet the dialogue seems written by a person who got really drunk and started an all night writing session. In the drunken stupor it all made sense. However, when they woke up in the morning the reaction was similar to the audience’s. Everybody says “huh?”
The questionable writing is a moot point because nobody goes to movies like this expecting Aaron Sorkin dialogue. Audiences go to director Tarsem Singh’s (The Fall, The Cell) films to see these things:
The movie focuses on a plethora of muscular people trying to stop Mickey Rourke from procuring a magical bow that can free belligerent titans. It is never fully understood as to why Rourke is so angry. The dude wants power at all costs and has no problem killing all of his most capable assistants in the process of gaining the world.
The conundrum is that Rourke is the same pugnacious guy you’ve seen in countless films. He murders all of his assistants, he wears a cool helmet and hates traitors. One of the positives that come out of the short dialogue is that you don’t have to listen to any Rourke monologues. This is a good thing because Rourke has adopted the breath heavy technique. Between every word/sentence he takes an incredibly deep breath. It becomes distracting.
Take a look at this picture. Rourke had to say “I hate good-looking muscular people and I want to free the titans so I can have absolute power. Also, I need a bath.” This line takes 11 minutes.
The Immortals doesn’t have the same amount of yelling and death that made 300 a classic amongst fanboys around the world. However, it is a breezy (helped by Rourke’s breathing) time that you will not regret.
Share this post:
The Escapist
I enjoyed this film. It doesn’t break any new ground but it does provide a neat prison break. What I appreciate is The Escapist was directed by a first timer named Rupert Wyatt. Wyatt shows a lot of maturity and creates a neat atmosphere on a budget. It is no wonder he was chosen to direct Rise of the Planet of the Apes.
The movie centers around Brian Cox planning a prison break. He gathers an eclectic group of inmates and they plan the escape. The movie alternates between flash backs and the break out. I liked this aspect a lot. The alternating time frames kept the film moving while completely avoiding the dudes in prison clichés.
The Escapist is a decent flick that provides a lesson about filmmaking on a budget.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: The Next Three Days
In 2005 Russell Crowe got mad and threw a cell phone. The cell phone hit a man in the face. One year later Crowe starred in A Good Year. The film tried to rehab Crowe’s image and reestablish him as an ordinary man. A Good Year made only seven million dollars and scored an abysmal 25% score on Rotten Tomatoes. His next two headlining films American Gangster and 3:10 to Yuma compiled a 86% score and collected 185 million. What was the difference?
When Russell Crowe plays a genius, captain, gladiator, cowboy or boxer his movies collected 800 million (in the USA). However, when he plays a regular reporter, small town hockey player, husband, businessman or fat CIA guy the movies only made 124 million. That is a difference of 676 million dollars. Here is a great example. Robin Hood had a %43 score and State of Play collected a 83% score on Rotten Tomatoes. However, Robin Hood made $68 million more. People like Crowe with weapons.
Another interesting tidbit is that Critics tend to dislike Crowe as a normal guy. When Crowe plays a badass the average Rotten Tomatoes score is 75.8%. When Crowe plays a milquetoast man the ranking drops down to 50.2%. The 50.2 was helped by State of Play’s 83%
Sidenote: I’ve left out LA Confidential, Virtuosity and The Quick and the Dead because he was part of an ensemble and not the lead.
The weird thing is that Crowe’s regular guy films were directed by Ridley Scott, Paul Haggis, Kevin Macdonald and Jay Roach. These directors have made aliens, Scottish kings, swinging spies and crashes believable. However, they couldn’t make Russell Crowe a successful regular guy. I wager that it would be easier for all the king’s men to put Humpty Dumpty back together than make Crowe an everyday dude.
One thing I noticed about Crowe in The Next Three Days is that he has one facial expression the entire film. It seems like he is acting whereas in action films he becomes the character. Take a look at these pictures he doesn’t know what to do with himself.
Look at this picture from Gladiator and you can tell Crowe is more at ease in an action setting.
The Next Three Days should have been tense. However, the movie doesn’t work with Crowe as the lead. The movie should have been rewritten as opposed to having Russell try to make the character work. Matthew Broderick or Jay Baruchel should have been the lead. The same thing happened to the remake of Straw Dogs. Dustin Hoffman was the lead in the original. However, James Marsden was cast as the nerd in the remake. Marsden played a superhero in X-Men and should never have been cast as a weakling.
Crowe perfectly embodied Maximus the gladiator. You never once noticed that it was Crowe playing a role. You only saw the dude fighting tigers. However, in The Next Three Days you only see him trying to play a normal guy. Crowe is more believable fighting his way around the world than being a domesticated man. I’m hoping that he can recover the toughness and resume his fighting ways.
Leave a commment and let me know what you think.
Share this post:
The Descendants
The Descendants is an intelligent, natural and fun film focusing on a man dealing with his wife’s coma and infidelity. The movie tackles family and life realistically and doesn’t pander to melodramatics or stereotypes. The film moves at a slow pace that allows the viewer to become invested in the location, characters and story. I really loved the core family in the story. They have their problems but you can actually envision them in the real world as opposed to movie land.
Alexander Payne is one of my favorite directors. Election, About Schmidt and Sideways are all original and beautiful films. They involve three-dimensional characters and stories that people can relate to. Payne always manages to get great performances out of his actors. I love that he brought Matthew Lillard back to the mainstream.
Watch this film. The Descendants will immerse you in its rich characters, original dialogue and beautiful vistas.
Share this post:
Anonymous (2011)
MY CALL: With a commanding performance by Rhys Ifans, this story depicts a greater tragedy than Shakespeare himself had ever penned. The least tragic element in this film is that Shakespeare is a fraud. This film left me wowed. [B+] IF YOU LIKE THIS, WATCH: Shakespeare lovers looking for a change of pace may turn to Shakespeare in Love. FUN FACT: The two actresses who play Queen Elizabeth are mother and daughter.
I was getting far too comfortable seeing Rhys Ifans (Notting Hill, Pirate Radio, The Replacements) playing shaggy, directionless buffoons. FINALLY he has received a strong lead playing the Earl of Oxford. In this compelling period piece it is he, and not the otherwise famed name, who actually penned the works of William Shakespeare. Growing up in a noble household in which poetry and theater are analogous with sin, he finds himself the recipient of voices, rich with prosaic observations of life, which plague him until they are inked to parchment. The products of which are the works of Shakespeare.
This comes to pass as the Earl bribes a mediocre playwright (Ben Johnson, played by Sebation Armesto) to claim his plays as his own. However, when the time comes to assume credit before his invigorated audience, Johnson hesitates. Opportunistically, William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall), a desperate actor in the play privy to Johnson’s secret deal, steps forward and assumes the role. What ensues is a web of political deception and betrayal, littered with twists which culminate in a tale more tragic than “Shakespeare” himself ever penned. While I’d love to explain how, I’m NO SPOILER.
Online reviews of Anonymous vary wildly in ratings from “amazing” to “boring.” While I advocate that my opinion is unique to any other and we all have our preferences, I have difficulty understanding how anyone but an ill-educated child could possibly find this “boring” unless we’re confusing “boring” with “I didn’t like it.” In defense of other aspects of this film, the set design and cinematography (occasionally CGI-enhanced) didn’t quite receive the budget it deserved. At first, this was disappointing. However, as I watched on, I appreciated how the budget was used and enjoyed shots of poverty-stricken cityscapes and aerial views of gross architecture. I get it—these sets are expensive. It is also worth mentioning that I did not enjoy the characters of William Shakespeare and Ben Johnson. These characters do little more than serve humbly as the spoon delivering the castor oil that is the “truth” of the plot. I won’t rule out that they could have been written considerably better, but this movie is more about the Earl of Oxford, political subterfuge, and his secret. It’s not about the over-the-top, illiterate William Shakespeare. In fact, the least tragic element of this movie was Shakespeare’s fraud.
My defense of these flaws clearly identifies my stance on the movie. I liked it a lot—really, I loved it. Rhys Ifans has never failed to entertain me, but has never entertained me like this. The Earl is strong yet desperate, vulnerable with respect to his work yet callous to his wife and civic responsibilities, and deeply methodical yet inconsiderate of consequence. The Earl is the object of political and romantic turns which drive the story forward, and he is well-complemented by the Queen (played young and old by Joely Richardson of Nip/Tuck and Vanessa Redgrave, respectively) and the manipulative Cecils (played by David Thewlis and Edward Hogg).
By the way, the ending…very heavy, very touching, very real.
Movies, Films & Flix 