Day 30: May 30th, 2010

Speed



Pop Quiz Hot Shot!!!

In light of recent events, I decided to watch a film in Dennis Hopper's honour. I decided on Speed, because it has one of his more entertaining roles, he plays an over the top villain somewhere in between the likes of Frank Booth from Blue Velvet and the bald guy with an eye patch from Waterworld.

"I saw this movie about a bus that had to speed around a city, keeping its speed over fifty, and if its speed dropped, it would explode! I think it was called 'The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down'." - Homer Simpson

That pretty much sums up this film, but to go a bit more in depth...

A disgruntled ex cop takes his issues out on other people with the creative use of bombs. Keanu Reeves saves the day by stopping an elevator bombing scare. This pisses Dennis Hopper off so much that he devises a new plan of putting a bomb on a bus. If the bus goes below 50, the bomb will go off. Can Keanu save the day?

And will we ever see a movie like this again? There is something about this film that makes it special. The action blockbuster that ignited the careers of both Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves. The film does not require a strong leading man, just someone who is able to pull off these stunts. Reeves is able to make it look legit and even though people complain about his acting, he is in no way irritating. Bullock spends most of the film behind the wheel of the bus, so of course she falls in love with the guy. Wait, what? Ah, who cares, right? This kind of stuff always happened in the 90's. Girl falls in love with the good looking guy who saves the day. But those relationships never last (evidence in the lame sequel)

Dennis Hopper is one bad ass guy. He plays crazy so well, his role here is not Blue Velvet Frank Booth crazy, but cray nonetheless. The film is even more enjoyable due to the supporting cast of characters that are on the bus with the two stars. Jeff Daniels plays the buddy cop part, but due to the events in the opening of the film, has to stay at home for the exciting parts on the bus.

With the exception of the bus jumping the gap in the highway scene, which makes me roll my eyes every single time, the film is entertaining and will keep your interest. For a film to take place on a bus for 80% of the film, they did a really good job of not letting that annoy the audience. The film is the perfect formula for action junkies. It has a lot of those adrenaline rush scenes. For me it kind of looses it's steam when the film goes to the subway, but that doesn't ruin the overall excitement and feel of the film.

Speed is one of the best action films of the 90's. There, I said it. I can probably sit down and watch it and never really feel bored. Kudos for making the film watchable many times and still have that rush. A lot of action films on repeat viewings loose that.

R.I.P Dennis Hopper

8/10

Day 29: May 29th, 2010

Igor




Igor Should Have Been A Success

...but the film fails to deliver on it's actually interesting premise.

Igor is the sidekick to an evil scientist, we always get the evil scientist story, but never the story of the sidekick. This is where this film comes in. Igor, even though he is a sidekick, wants to be an evil scientist himself. Insert some humour that most kids won't get and some dark material that will scare them away, then you are left with an animated film that seemed to have lost it's target audience. It's also completely obvious they are trying to target the Tim Burton crowd as well, but it feels really third rate in terms of anything in that department.

Igor is voiced by John Cusack, interesting choice. My problems with some animated films these days is that we no longer have voice actors in the lead roles, who are trained in this sort of thing, but any actor who is looking for a paycheck to just sit behind a microphone and speak the words from the script out loud. I found that Cusack is at fault here, despite everyone else in the film actually doing a decent job.

The animation is nothing special. If looked at in comparison to other films, it looks very basic and that it belonged to the year 1998, not 2008. The dark and brooding atmosphere is not brooding enough, and not childish enough. It feels very boring and bland. Almost as if no effort was put into it.

The writing is very bad and the script is below par. For a film that could have been filled with some funny jokes about the cliched parts of this genre, it had none that made me laugh. The supporting characters are good, for adults, but not children. I think some kids might be scared that there is a suicidal bunny....even more scared when they find out it is voiced by Steve Buscemi.

With so many good animated films out there, it's easy to close your eyes and blindly pick one up off the shelf that is better than Igor. It falls in the category of completely forgettable, with films like Valiant, Space Chimps, Fly Me To The Moon and others I can't even remember....because they are that forgettable.

I'm sure there are people who had no intention of seeing this. Consider this review as confirmation to those who were maybe a little interested, that you should just skip it.

4/10

Day 28: May 28th, 2010

The Black Dahlia



All Style & No Substance.

Two detectives are on the case of The Black Dahlia, which is taking a huge toll on their personal and professional lives.

The Black Dahlia is a mess of a film, but what a beautiful mess it is. De Palma for all accounts is at fault here for failing to make an interesting film on a topic that should have been essentially easy to do. Everyone likes a good detective story and trying to solve the Black Dahlia case is enough to get the audience invested in the history. This film didn't even make me want to look any of the actual accounts up, which tells you how unaccomplished the film is.

As I said earlier, it is beautiful to look at. Cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond and Brian De Palma have the noir style down perfect in Dahlia and whenever I got bored, which was 90 percent of the film, I would try to get lost in the atmosphere this film creates. Everything is in the right place, yet only the look of the film manages to make me smile.

Josh Hartnett seems miscast in the lead role that required someone with more gravitas. He still has that boyish charm to him and the role required someone with a harder core shell. Someone along the lines of his partner, Aaron Eckhart. Hilary Swank plays Madeleine Linscott, she always seems to rub me the wrong way with her acting choices. This one is no different. How she has two Oscars is unknown to me. Scarlett Johansson is given nothing in this film to do and if she had something, I doubt she would have been able to pull it off.

This film has too many subplots involving the characters that the case itself seemed to play second fiddle. This shouldn't be the case when your film is called The Black Dahlia. It's hard to see that this film was directed by the guy who also gave us Scarface, The Untouchables and Snake Eyes...okay, maybe I'm alone on that one.

I would advise against watching this film as it fails to ignite any interest in the case or what the story should actually be about. Character relationships seem really odd and written by someone who has no real thoughts or intentions with them. The Black Dahlia should be having people look the murder up and discuss, much like Fincher's Zodiac. This film doesn't do any of that, it feels like it wants to be another film entirely. De Palma has always been hit and miss with me and this entry is showing me that he has lost a lot of what people thought was talent.

Not Recommended, especially for those wanting to know more about the case itself.

4/10

Day 27: May 27th, 2010

From Paris With Love



A Fun Way To Spend 90 Minutes.

A young spy who wants to get bigger and better jobs is partnered with an American hot head with a foul mouth and a love for violence. The mission is to stop some terrorists.

To say I was expecting crap would be an understatement. Travolta's goofy look, a tired clichéd pairing of straight man and crazy partner, senseless action that would try to cram a plot and story in at some point. Yet, after the credits rolled, I sat there with a smile on my face. As far as spy films go, this one takes a more action heavy side. There are some cool and interesting gadgets, but I didn't get any James Bond moment.

Travolta surprised me here too. His character was funny, bad ass at times and knew how to kick some ass. The only downside would be that I just couldn't imagine Travolta doing half of these things. He's a great character and fits perfectly with this film, but it seems a tad miscast for the action sequences. Travolta nails every other part of the role. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the straight man to Travolta's crazy hero. This is nothing new and the film doesn't try to step around this issue. Instead it is upfront about it. It tells you exactly what you are in for when you are introduced to these characters. All it asks is for you, as a viewer, to enjoy the action and thrills this film wants to give you.

The action is non-stop. Of course we are privy to those scenes in between where we need to move the plot along, but the film has shootouts, car chases, foot chases, rocket launchers, etc. It's handled well and I was actually able to see the action on the screen. I was never lost in the film, I knew where I was the whole time and what was being depicted. Again, that one shortfall is that we know Travolta isn't doing these action sequences, it's clearly a stuntman.

With every spy film you know there will be some twist that someone is not who they seem to be. I was able to pick this one out right from the beginning. Again, the plot devices used in From Paris With Love are far from original, we have all seen this film before. So why bother watching it? For the chemistry between the two leads and the action sequences in a beautiful city. The city, we unfortunately, did not see enough of.

I went in with low expectations and came out happy with the end result. I would suggest you do the same.

7/10

Day 26: May 26th, 2010

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs



Cloudy With A Chance Is A Great Fun Time.

After yesterdays film, I figured I'd watch something a little more upbeat. Enter this colourful fun entertaining film.

Failure after failure after failure after failure, Flint decides to solve a certain sardine problem his town has, by converting water into food. He invents a machine, which then goes a bit haywire and launches itself into the sky. Fortunately for him, it worked, and food begins falling out of the sky. Unfortunately it eventually gets a mind of it's own and tries to destroy to town with over-sized food.

Look at the pretty colours. Those were the words from my girlfriend when we saw the trailer for this film, which we sadly did not see in the theatres. Yes, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs is a great animated kids film with more than enough comedy for the older crowd. Although it wasn't the best animated film last year, it was the funniest in my opinion.

The animation fit the story perfectly and the food falling all over were great visuals. You can tell the animators had a lot of fun with this film. Sony Pictures Animation haven't really had a film in their roster to stand out and to me, this one is their golden ticket. It's a shame it wasn't recognized at the Oscars, as I think it deserved a place on the nomination list.

The kids learn valuable lessons about responsibility and being yourself, while getting to have fun with the images of ice cream snowball fights, a building made out of jello and a school covered by a giant pancake. The adults get the comedy of Bill Hader from SNL, recognizable voices of Mr. T, Neil Patrick Harris and the man, the myth, the legend himself, Bruce Campbell. Each role fit their voice actor perfectly. Usually Anna Faris annoys me, here she made me like her character more because of her unique voice. James Caan as the dad is the added cherry on the top of the cake. Gummi Bear Twilight Zone reference? Brilliant.

The film is really funny and hits every note it has to. The climax works perfectly and the vibrant colours will keep the kids watching the screen. The disaster film has been given the animated kids film treatment and it works wonderfully. I highly recommend Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs for the entire family.

8/10

Day 25: May 25th, 2010

Martyrs



Emotionally Draining, I Felt Dirty Afterwards

A young girl is abused, force fed slop and chained up. She escapes, but is haunted by a ghastly looking demon girl who continue to inflict harm on her. She is sent to an orphanage, where she makes friends with another girl. 15 years later, she seeks revenge on the people that did this to her. What she and her friend end up going through, is more haunting than they imagined.

I don't really know where to start with this review. Let me say that I consider myself desensitized to violence and horrors. I can sit through the Hollywood films of Saw and Hostel and laugh at the screen in the violent terror. I can sit through the shock and horror of Cannibal Holocaust and I Spit On Your Grave. I was not expecting anything from this film, and yet it hit me the hardest. No other film has really made me feel as emotionally drained as this. The images, the sounds and the emotions in this film are very disturbing and hard to watch.

Martyrs is not something I would recommend people watching, simply because of it's subject matter. I won't go into details but the second half of the film is some of the most heart wrenching images to watch, from a fictional film standpoint. The film almost has a grindhouse feel to it, as if you are watching two different films. The first half is a revenge tale with a bit of psychological horror thrown in, then the second half hits you and you don't know what to do.

The film has no hope for it's characters. I usually hate films like this because it makes the point of watching it almost mute. Why should I care about these characters when I know the journey they are going on will end in a horrible mess. For some odd reason though, this film felt a little different. I suppose this is why I don't throw it into the same torture porn horror field as the Hostels and Saw films in this world. The film is in French and it plays out with a sense of professionalism. It knows the point it wants to get across and it does so. I can completely understand that people can feel the total opposite though. This film walks a very fine line.

I felt dirty after the film, I felt horrible and helpless. I wanted the characters to do so many things to get them out of their situations, but it never happened and I knew it never would. The explanation at the end of it all is a bit out there in terms of believability. But the ending is left to the viewers imagination. My take on it is that the human mind cannot fathom the truth of what they seek. Which is why it ends the way it does.

Martyrs is a very tough film to sit through and I commend anyone who does so.

6/10

Day 24: May 24th, 2010

Kung Fu Hustle



Crazy Cartoon Kung Fu Comedy Action.

A young man and his friend try to join the notorious AXE GANG, but in doing so they need to do some pretty nasty things. Through a series of unfortunate events the axe gang stumble upon this place called pig stye alley and they cause chaos for the people who live there. This causes kung fu masters who live there to reveal themselves and begin a war. The young man, Sing, nearly dies during a battle and is reborn as a kung fu master, who must fight the evil one known as The Beast.

I saw Shaolin Soccer and was surprised by how much I loved that film. It had soccer, kung- fu, great comedy and hilarious off the wall moments that would never happen outside of the world created in the film. Chow has taken this concept to the next level with Kung Fu Hustle, a brilliantly funny and ass kicking kung fu film. The quotes about the film are true, it really is a Kill Bill Meets Looney Tunes flick.

Chow is Sing, the lead character, who wants to be really bad. He has trouble doing this because he is horrible at it. It all stemmed from a troubling childhood, in which he was sold some wacky looking kung fu manual, which made him think he knew kung fu. When he sees a young deaf mute girl being picked on, he tries to use his kung fu to help her. Oops, he gets his butt kicked and then he gets urinated on. How's that for humiliation. Now that he's older, he thinks the only way to get things in life is if you take them by force. So he joins the axe gang, but has a battle of conscience and is nearly killed. This unleashes his kung fu skills and then the poop hits the fan.

The film is off the wall wacky fun. The kung fu in the film is really well choreographed and with the added use of funny CGI, it takes the film to another level of entertainment. Chow uses numerous references in his film, from Kill Bill to The Matrix to The Shining. It's fun to spot them here and there. The film never feels like it's cheating or copying others, it's definitely it's own unique film. It just knows where its inspirations are.

I can't recommend this one enough, it has numerous re-watch capabilities. I find myself watching it every time it is on television. If you're a fan of Chow and Shaolin Soccer, Kung fu Hustle manages to outdo it's predecessor. It might take some people a moment or two to get use to the animated style used in the film, it is very Bugs Bunny/Road Runner. Go in with the right expectations and you will have fun.

9.5/10

Day 23: May 23rd, 2010

Three Kings



We Three Kings Be Stealing The Gold.

Here is yet another film I've seen. Three Kings. So I'll take some words from my last review.

My feelings on the film haven't changed, it's still one funny and entertaining war film. Despite what happened behind the scenes, the film is something they should be proud of.

Sure the director is crazy and Mark Walhberg can't act, but the film works so well. The bleach bypass process they used makes the film stand out, it has a unique look that sticks in your mind even after the film. It's just a tad bit different than what people are use to, not enough to be too drastic, but just enough to make it memorable.

The film handles both drama and comedy really well and never confuses the two. The style of the film is what makes the film so interesting. It is incredible funny at times, and of course violent when needs to be. Russell is a good director and this is his best film, to date.

The bullet traveling through the body sequence holds the viewer in awe, think of any CSI episode. The way Russell decides to depict the action sequences in some scenes is also interesting, specifically when they first leave with the gold. There is a shoot out, which is not your average shootout. It's instead played up with simple camera movement and audio. You see the shooter, pan over to the victim, and you hear the sound of the bullet hitting them. No flash or over the top style, simple and effective.

Clooney gets billed as a movie star and sex symbol, but rarely gets praise for his acting ability. Here he shows what he can do, along side Wahlberg, who usually annoys, and Ice Cube, who usually bores. Spike Jonze makes an appearance as the fourth tag along as well.

Watch this film, it's one of the best of the recent years. It was what Jughead wanted to be before Jughead was even around.

8/10

Day 22: May 22nd, 2010

The Story of Ricky




Man Stabs Himself... Rips Out Guts... Strangles Other Man With Said Guts.

A man with the strength of 30 plus men is sent to a corrupt prison. While there he fights the inmates and the warden to right all the wrongs.

I wouldn't be surprised if no one here has ever heard of this film. I myself only heard of it through the word of friend, who hasn't even seen it himself. After much debate I decided to throw caution to the wind and buy it. I'm not disappointed I did, but not thrilled about it either. Does this film have a deep and thought provoking plot? Oscar worthy performances, or amazing special effects? Heck no, far from it. What does it have you ask? Well, plot holes left right and centre, camp and cheese in the performance and the effects and more over-the-top scenes than a McG flick.

Why would anyone want to watch a film like this? Well, I bought it for one reason...and one reason only. The Violent Gore. For the longest time Peter Jackson's 'Dead Alive' was notorious for being "The Goriest Film Of All Time". Well, after seeing this flick, I don't know if that statement can still hold true. Although the gore in this film, which earned it a category III rating in Hong Kong, the first ever for a film with violence and not sex (think XXX), is above and beyond, it falls into the same category as Dead-Alive, it's too cartoony to be taken seriously. In any review of a horror flick that claims to be gory, I compare it to the likes of Dead-Alive, Evil Dead Cannibal Holocaust. I can add this flick to that list as well.

Let's go over what happens in this flick shall we. We first get a glimpse of what we have in store for us when a guy has his nose sliced off from a wooden lathe, block of wood with nails goes through a man's hands to the face, someone gets punched through their stomach, a saw like sword get stuck half way through a man's face, a knife skins a man's face, a cane pokes an eyeball out of it's socket, punch through the face, a punch to a man's hand explodes it, someone gets a mouth full of razors and then bitch slapped, a man crushes another's head with bare hands....and much much more. I didn't even tell you the goriest part yet.

I mentioned plot holes earlier and they are everywhere here. Such as why are the prisoners able to go in and out of their cells at will? Why is the secret grow-op being done out in plain sight. Also, when the ceiling is crushing you, why aren't you running out the giant hole in the wall right next to you? There are many many more, but the list is too long. These things do not really distract from the film, but add to the whole campy cheese feel that is oozing in this flick.

If you thought that Blade II, Kill Bill or The Matrix were as close to anime as we can get for live-action...look no further then Story Of Ricky. It is without a doubt, the closest thing to anime I have seen today. Which speaks volumes, with all the gory scenes being done to obvious look alike dummies. Look for the inside of someone's hand being made of styrofoam. Here is a movie that is perfect for the internet based game "Things I've Learned From This Movie". You can go on and on with such things as I learned that destroying gravestones is okay when you're learning kung-fu.

See the film if any of this interests you, don't see it if you are seriously disturbed. But if you do watch it, watch it with a bunch of friends, it makes the comedy so much better.

5.5/10

Day 21: May 21st, 2010

The Thing



The Ultimate In Alien Terror? I'd Say So.


The thing about The Thing, is that it is pure bad-ass male testosterone fueled alien sci/fi horror. Kurt Russel with a sombrero flying a helicopter? You can't ask for anything better than that.

The film is about an alien who can perfectly mimic/imitate the host it invades. We start off at an arctic ice station. Perfect for the alien to consume the prey, they have nowhere to go. Not knowing who to trust, the men must survive the arctic conditions and make it to the end, stopping this alien.

Paranoia is what makes this film stand out for me, aside from the great animatronic works that are still terrifying and horrifically grotesque today. I still forget who gets infected when and who to trust. I said last time that re-watching the film, it still held up. Well, I'm happy to say that upon another viewing I'm still in love with it.

Again, Kurt Russell and John Carpenter are a great team. I want a comeback film for both of them. They compliment each other very well. This is one of my favourite collaborations they've done.

I wouldn't have ended it any other way either.

8.5/10

Missed Some Posts Eh?

I don't know if anyone's noticed but there seemed to have been some days that have gone by with no reviews.

Well, I was up at a cottage for some much needed vacation time and forgot to post it here. No worries though, still going strong on the movie front.

Although, I did watch some flicks I have seen many times before.

We have this bet with a friend of ours in which he has to watch 20 films in one year. So we brought up some films for him to watch. Two of them I had already seen. The days there, every film we watched I have previously seen. No biggie though, it was going to be an entire year seeing new films.

I will have the reviews up tomorrow after work, for now I'm getting some more needed sleep.

Day 20: May 20th, 2010

Blood Simple.



The Coen's Always Have The Last Laugh

A man hires a Private Investigator to follow his wife, whom he assumes is having an affair with one of his employees. He's right and he goes a little berserk. He wants the Private Investigator to kill them and will pay him $10,000. But nothing is that simple.

The Coen's first feature film is something to marvel at. They shot the trailer and used that to interest investors, claiming this is what the film will look like, only 90 minutes long. With the help of Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, they got what they wanted. Blood Simple. with a period after the title like it should be spelled, is a modern noir film that has that signature Coen style ending that gets the audience pondering it's meaning, even if it's just a joke from the directors.

Blood Simple starts off slow, really slow. I found myself having no interest in the film until the Private Investigator pulled his stunt on Marty. The film then took an interesting turn into a suspenseful film that actually got me excited for what would happen next. The events that happen after the slow, boring and uninteresting beginning make up for it. Maybe upon repeated viewings I'll like the opening scenes more, but I just found them long and drawn out.

M. Emmet Walsh stands out above the rest of the cast, he looks like he is having the most fun and it suits his character. Hedaya plays his usual prick self and there is a young Frances McDormand who plays his cheating wife. John Getz as Ray is sometimes frustrating, from the look of his career now, others find him lacking as well. He is not leading material.

Blood Simple is a well done directorial debut from the brothers who've become some of the best working directors today. As it stands in their filmography, it's obvious they've outdone Blood Simple. Yet it still has a place in their books, since it was their first effort and it is better than the likes of the more Hollywood budgeted films like The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty.

The Coen's have always been doing their own thing, you can tell from this film. They don't cater to the audience, instead they play on their expectations. Simply put, Blood Simple is good, but not great.

7/10

Day 19: May 19th, 2010

The Collector



Throw Plausibility Out The Door.

When a thief enters a house he was working construction at, he is under the impression he will be stealing a diamond. He has debts to pay off. When he enters he notices that there is someone else in the house too, an insane serial killer. He's known as The Collector. It becomes a cat and mouse game between the two.

Very interesting take on the genre. Two bad guys in a house, one more evil than the other of course, but interesting nonetheless. What would have made this film better for me is if they ditched the thief aspect and had the lead be another serial killer. Then we have two serial killers trying their hardest to best the other in their own sick and twisted ways. Alas, this is not that film. Though I give the film props for having a main character with some brains.

A lot of people are comparing the film to the SAW series, that's understandable. The killer sets each room up with it's own trap. Unique and interesting traps that make you wonder how the hell he could have done it all, some of them while the thief is still in there. To enjoy this film I had to throw plausibility out the door. You should too, otherwise you might be frustrated.

I think you can guess why they call him the Collector. No need to probe that area. But why does he collect? Not really explored. I wanted to get inside this guy's head. We are never given that chance. Our lead is interesting to some degree, he makes being a down on your luck loser guy likable. Once we get into the house, pretty much everything stops from a story telling stand point and it turns into a "how can we up ourselves in each room' scenario.

The film has a somewhat 80's feel to it, revamped for today's genre. When the film should have been able to stand out on it's own, it falls. It becomes a cookie cutter follower and never stands out of the shadow of the films before it. It's a dark and depressing film too, any sense of hope is squashed and you feel rotten after the credits roll. Good job on that.

Bottom line is that the real star of the film are the traps. They're are intriguing and if you can get pass the logistics of many of them, you'll enjoy the suspenseful ride.

6/10

Day 18: May 18th, 2010

Dead Girl



Hey Kids, Who Wants To Watch A Movie About Raping Zombies?

Two high school friends ditch school to go drinking in this abandoned asylum. They get lost after an encounter with a dog and end up finding a body. The body is of a dead girl, naked and chained to a table. The twist is she is not dead, but the undead. What would the normal thing to do in this situation be? Well, one of the guys thinks it's to have sex with her and keep her as their sex slave. Things obviously get out of control.

Dead Girl was a little film that I heard about after reading a list of the Top Ten Most Disturbing Movies You'll Ever See. With that in mind, I went into Dead Girl expecting sick and twisted things. I got those, but not to the degree I was thinking of. Sure the scenario is sick and disturbing, but I find that if I went in not knowing anything about it, it would have had a more profound effect on me. Sexuality plays a big part in this film, the homosexual subtext between the two friends early on sets up some kind of weird relationship that isn't really explored till the end. These guys objectify women. They are virgins and want to loose their v-card, so seeing a naked girl chained up to a table unleashes these weird sexual urges in one of them. She tries to bite him and he beats her, breaks her neck as well.

Uh-Oh, she is not dead. They discover she can't die, the guy even shoots her to prove it. Yes, one character has a gun, and the scene is so poorly written that you can tell they needed a simply way of telling the audience this girl is dead. So we give a character a random gun that is used in this random scene and it is never seen again. The two friends immediately take opposing sides. One is in love with the idea and even invites others to join, while the other finds it sick and disturbing. The one in love with the idea becomes twisted and obsessed with his unorthodox relationship with this dead girl.

The analogy to boys growing up and exploring their sexuality is lost in this film, they resort to rape. I felt bad for the actress who had to lay there naked being used in such a horrific way. By the end of the film, it felt as if there was no real protagonist and everyone was evil. The comedy fell flat in some areas and seemed really random in others.

The subject matter is indeed interesting though and the filmmakers handled it in a mature way. It is not your average zombie film. You know that the climax of the film will involve her getting loose somehow. So there are no real surprises in the film. The twists and turns are really seen a mile away. Some people might find it hard to enjoy a film that is about necrophilia. I for one thought it started off well and then gradually had it's ups and downs. The inclusion of the other guys (Wheeler and two bullies) seemed to show the writers were a bit inept, the dialogue didn't help it either.

The subject matter is controversial and so is the film, to a degree. It's not the most horrifying film I've ever seen, nor does it really tip the ice berg. But then again, you are probably not like me. Constant images of a naked woman chained up, beaten to a pulp, bloody, raped and degraded might bother some people. The horror aspect is left until the end when it becomes more of a conventional horror film. It's the unsettling mood and themes this film has that make people uneasy with it. I can only recommend this to people who are actually interesting in this type of stuff. This is not for your every day movie goer.

5.5/10

Day 17: May 17th, 2010

Angels & Demons




It Was Better Than The Da Vinci Code

Robert Langdon is back in the sequel that is based on the first book. This time Langdon is brought on to a case in the Vatican, there has been a murder. Langdon must help solve a bunch of riddles and clues to make sure a terrorist plot does not ensue.

The Da Vinci code was met with unsatisfied reactions. Hank's hair was a big thing in the media and it overtook the film, since he was such a deadpan character in the first one. He fares a little better here, but it's still kind of ho-hum. The better book of the two is also the better film of the two. Angels and Demons has many problems and I almost forgot I even watched it today, which isn't a good sign. But it is tighter, has a better narrative and feels more suspenseful.

There are tons of stuff missing from the film, as expected. The plot revolves around the capture four cardinals, Langdon must find them all and save them before they are executed every hour. The Illuminati are behind it, who have hired an assassin to kill each one using one of the four elements, earth, water, fire, air. Each one has the word branded into their skin. The clues in this one seem to flow a little better than Da Vinci and gone are the stupid CGI lettering techniques.

The cast is weaker though, Ewan McGregor is a bore. Ayelet Zurer has no chemistry with Langdon and is weaker than Tautou. Stellan Skarsgård is really the only one who had my attention. He was more of an interesting character than the lead.

The plot is predictable, even for people who have not read the book and the actions that happen on the screen are laughable sometimes. Specifically the stuck in the book records scene and the parachute scene. Both had me giggling while I rolled eyes and the lunacy.

The production wasn't allowed to film in a lot of the Cathedrals, it is painfully obvious is a lot of the scenes. Sometimes I felt like I was watching a Star Wars movie it was so bad (the prequels, obviously). The assassin is nowhere as interesting as Silas, he was never given the chance to be. Important relationships are left out of the script and overall the film is really, like I said, forgettable.

Despite all this, the film's rating reflects the good aspects of it. The Da Vinci Code got a 6 from me, so I can't give it that. 6.5 maybe, or a 7? It was certainly the better film of the two since they knew better the second time. Maybe these books just weren't made to be made for the screen? In any event, Angels and Demons is a mediocre film, with a decent rating from me.

6.5/10

Day 16: May 16th, 2010

Alien Resurrection



It Had Some Interesting Ideas

Ripley is cloned and brought back. She wasn't alone though, they also brought back the alien that was inside her. With a crew bringing some cargo on board the same ship these alien experiments go awry and the aliens escape. All that is left is Ripley and the crew of the Betty.

The reason why I think this film gets so much hate is because it seems to cheapen the ending to Alien 3, which was the best thing about that film. It ended her legacy and the story in the franchise and now comes a fourth film that many thought was a cash cow waiting to be milked. Alien: Resurrection has some interesting ideas, but the execution of the film as a whole just seems like a misfire.

The first had terror, the second had action the third had the ending, the only way to end the series. What does this one have? Again, the cash cow thing comes to mind. The producers thought if they got geek writer Joss Whedon and French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet, they could fool the audience. It would seem that two rights can't make a wrong. Joss Whedon's original script was obviously changed, but in interviews he said that his final draft is what is seen on the screen. So what's the problem? The execution apparently. While Whedon went for a tongue in cheek aspect, Jeunet went down the straight and narrow and made the film serious. So I guess two rights can make a wrong.

The characters are interesting and the actors portraying them I thought was the best thing about the film. Ron Perlman, Gary Dourdan are the two stand outs in my opinion. Weaver isn't the same Ripley we once knew and loved. She is different. Part alien, she acts like one in the film. Again, it was an interesting idea, but I found myself liking her less and less. Not as much as I hated Ryder though, she was irritating and boring.

The film is looked upon as the worst one. Or the one that could be tossed up between Alien 3 as the worst. It's no bag of dirt. It's watchable, a lot better than the last two alien films we got. The problem was there was no emotion, specifically for a character who was different than what we knew. The script was written one way and the direction went in another. Neither was right or wrong, but together it doesn't work that well. The underwater sequence is great though, definitely the stand out scene among a bunch of boring running down corridors bits.

Alien: Resurrection has no sense of danger or terror. All three previous films had this in abundance. The story tried it's best to bring back the character of Ripley, but we got a shallow clone. The human/alien hybrid wasn't scary, it looked like less of a threat than the normal aliens. The climax was non-existent and should have taken place on Earth, it would have added a bit more urgency. The film looks great though. Cheers.

5.5/10

Day 15: May 15th, 2010

The Taking of Pelham 123



It Was A Nice Try

Pelham 123 is taken over by John Travolta is his posse. Denzel Washington is the poor guy who's working the day this happens and he is stuck in the middle of it all. Travolta doesn't want to speak with the hostage negotiator, he wants to speak with Washington. Demands are made, people are killed and this remake lacks what I wanted from a hostage film. That would be suspense.

Travolta is the bad guy, I dig it. He's been bad before. In Face/Off he had a lot of fun impersonating Nic Cage, I had fun with him too. In Broken Arrow he is up against Christian Slater, this time Travolta plays it cool. Pulp Fiction, he gained his respect back as Vincent the hit-man. In this one he cut his hair short and crew out a goatee. He looks really ridiculous, but that's besides the point. He is not terrifying here and for some odd reason it sounded really awkward when he would start swearing. Like it was some kind of forced material, it did not flow like in his other films.

Washington is the good guy, he is the loser, not knowing what to do, yet gets it done. He doesn't go above and beyond, he plays it regular. His pairing with Tony Scott here is very ho- hum. He doesn't command the screen and he shouldn't because it's not that type of character. But then again, Travolta doesn't either, when he really should have.

The suspense is no where to be found. I appreciate the gratitude the film puts the hostages in. A lot of films are scared to kill off some hostages, this one isn't. Usually we would also get to know some of the hostages, maybe find interest in the characters. Not here, they are on the back burner. So we could care less about them living or dying.

There is a subplot involving Washington taking a bribe, doesn't do much for me, or the story. The direction is as expected from Tony Scott. It gels with the same crowed as Domino, Man on Fire and Deja Vu. I do give it a little more respect than some of those I mentioned though because it doesn't have the same colour tinted editing that really got old fast. Domino and Man on Fire are guilty.

This remake is an okay way to spend 2 hours, it doesn't suck. But it doesn't really stay with you either, or turn up on your best of lists. What it boils down to is, this is mediocre and is full of characters that I just couldn't essentially care about. I haven't seen the original either, but that doesn't matter. Washington is more convincing than Travolta. Actually, when I look back and think about it, it wasn't all bad...until the last 20 or so minutes. Then it gets really out of hand.

5.5/10

Day 14: May 14th, 2010

Planes, Trains, & Automobiles



Why did it take me 22 years to watch this?

Trying to get back home to be with his family on Thanksgiving, a serious of unfortunate events prevents one tight ass salesman from doing so. Along the way he makes an unlikely friendship with another salesman, who always tries to look at the bright side of things, much to the annoyance of the other.

John Hughes is a great writer, talented director and had this special skill for comedy that has yet to be matched. The man nearly defined the 80's with his films about teens and this adult comedy starring the late John Candy and the funny man Steve Martin. I don't know why I haven't seen this film until now, I never had the urge to. After seeing it now I am slapping myself on the forehead for not seeing it earlier.

The comedy is great, it lies within the writing from John Hughes. Only to be brought to life perfectly and added upon by the two great leads. John Candy is both irritating and lovable. His scenes near the end are heartbreaking and his outlook on life is uplifting. Steve Martin is the everyday guy who tries to get back home to his family. Things are just not going his way. I'm sure every normal person would act the way he does in this film if these events were to happen to them. The pairing of these two comedians for this script was perfection.

I've seen bits and pieces, but never sat through the entire thing. So I've seen many of the funniest parts. The funny thing is, they were still funny when watching them. The film has classic lines like "Those aren't pillows" and many memorable scenes, like the swearing tirade and the going the wrong way home near death experience. The film has many more, which is why it is so great to watch.

This just might be my favourite John Hughes film, it's got heart, great comedic timing and is so well written that it makes my cry that he did his first draft in 3 days. As a wannabe writer, I'd kill to do that and have it be a fraction of what this is. Planes, Trains and Automobiles is a great comedy and the best Thanksgiving film. It's a shame I waited so long to see it, if you haven't, get it now.

8/10

Day 13: May 13th, 2010

The Lovely Bones



It's Not The Mess People Say It Is


Susie Salmon was 14 when she was raped and murdered. Instead of going to heaven, she is in the in-between. She is there to watch over her family through the grieving process and to somehow bring her killer to justice.

Let me say right off the bat that I have not read the book, but I understand that a lot of the hate towards this film is the fact that Peter Jackson didn't get the emotion right and he left the important stuff out to focus on the magical world that is the in-between. While I can't attest to this, I can sort of see their point, even without reading the novel. The story is easy to follow, but near the end becomes a bit cloudy with it's purpose and message. The film is far from perfect, but it is not the mess that people say it is.

Jackson loves his CGI and he uses it beautifully here, but it does seem to be overbearing. A lot of the in-between scenes are nice to look at, but they don't hold any emotional resonance with the viewer. We get that it's a wonderful place where you can do what you want, but we are shown this too many times. It took away from the more interesting story that was the family.

Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are the parents of Susie, normally I find Wahlberg to be too monotone and passive in his voice. I did not think he was going to be able to pull off the emotional requirements for this character. He didn't knock it out of the park, but he did surprise me. Weisz is the mother who cannot go on living in the house. Her husband is obsessed with the case and finding the murderer, her mother is an alcoholic and she needs room to come to terms with her daughter's death. The film doesn't explore the emotional weight enough for these two characters. We see they are upset, obviously, their daughter is dead, but I wanted them to dive deeper into their characters. It unfortunately wasn't the case here.

The film itself isn't sure what it wants to be, is it fantasy, is it a film about solving a murder case? It mixes both and yet doesn't feel like either. The obsession of the father is just one quick scene and we are to believe that he comes to a realization of certain events based on, I'm assuming, Susie willing him to. Far-fetched, but believable in some small ways. Stanley Tucci is the killer, this is no spoiler as it is all over the trailers. He is haunting in this role, his blue eyes are cold and steel like. His kind and warm hearted demeanor only adds to his tormented cruelty. Both Susan Sarandon and Stanley Tucci were excellent in their roles. Don't forget about Saoirse Ronan, after all if we don't like her why do we care? She was excellent and made the film better by her innocent and young portrayal of the victim.

There are certainly some suspenseful scenes, Jackson knows how to get an audience to hang on to the edge of their seats. Jackson uses his camera in unique ways to give and uneasy feeling at times. The shots looking through the doll house are great, as are the extreme close ups of random objects thrown on dutch angles.

The Lovely Bones isn't without it's problems. The film concludes with mixed messages and a lot of questions. Did she stay to see her killer brought to justice, or to kiss the guy? Does that girl live in that shack near the sink hole? Why did the film have random transformation possession scenes. None of it is really explained. She ends with film with some narration about the connections made in her death, yet I failed to see any.

In the end I did enjoy it though, it is shot beautifully and I was engaged in the story. The film is receiving a lot of heck, so I'll be in the minority and recommend it.

6.5/10

Day 12: May 12th, 2010

17 Again




Matthew Perry Doesn't Belong Here

A guy's life doesn't turn out the way he wanted it to and wishes he was 17 again. He gets his wish, well, sort of. Instead of going back in time to when he was 17, he turns 17 in the present. Also, Zac Efron will grow up to look like Matthew Perry.

How many times have we seen this? Both Big and 13 going on 30 did it, only in reverse. It's exactly like countless other films in which our main character switches back to their younger self with no explanation. Magic? Who knows. Why should you see it then? I don't know, it's got teen heartthrob Zac Efron. Is that good enough? I didn't think so.

As soon as the film tells you the conflict, you know the resolution. The question is do we care about how we get there, or about the characters we are about to spend the next hour and a half with. Matthew Perry in my mind was really miscast here, he doesn't feel like he belongs. The material isn't his style, Zac Efron on the other hand fits perfectly. I'm not saying the kid is a bad actor, I actually enjoyed him in this, but he fits this target demographic and style of writing.

17 Again is what you'd expect. Obvious plot details about the father learning more about his kids when he sees them from a different light. He tries to still be their father when he's a kid himself. He falls back in love with his wife, who is currently divorcing him. No one knows about him except his best friend. Who is one of the biggest geeks of all time. Thomas Lennon from Reno 911 and countless character roles in comedy films really has the best parts. How he gets his girl in the end is interesting and funny, even if it's unrealistic.

The kids are nothing special and Leslie Mann could have done a bit more with her role, but then again how much material is there for her? How many times have we seen the wife character be written sloppy, sidetracked and never cared about? Countless times, this is one of them. She has more screen time then I expected, but it doesn't amount to anything.

The film is enjoyable on a small scale, I didn't hate it by any means. I just found it to be forgettable and that it never tried hard enough to be a standout film. It felt like the director was satisfied in knowing that his main star vehicle would get the film noticed, regardless of the quality. It's too adequate with its place in the world. Recommended for people who dig this type of film.

5/10

Day 11: May 11th, 2010

Smokin Aces 2: Assassin's Ball



I Really Liked The First One, But This One Fails Terribly


Pretty much the same plot as the first one. Someone has put out a hit on another person and dozens of highly skilled assassins are called in to take him out. Bullets fly, bodies fall and the story doesn't seem all that it was suppose to be.

I'm one of a few people who really dug Smokin Aces. It had great quirky characters, good action when it was actually happening and it showed Ryan Reynolds can do more than just comedy. People seemed to complain that it was thin on story, needed more action, and deserved a better twist. Well, I am putting all those complaints to the second film, which is actually a prequel.

Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins Ball is a cheap direct to DVD cashing in on the name, quick and dirty film. The production values are pretty low rent and the acting suits it. Vinnie Jones is the biggest name draw and he is hardly in the film. They plaster his face all over the poster and he honestly doesn't belong there. In fact, one of the main characters isn't even on the poster. He's not recognizable enough. Tom Berenger plays the character who has the contract out on him and a special team of agents must protect him. So they take him to a vault, highly protected and assure him no one can get in. Sure enough, dozens of crazy hit men show up and that's when things go from bad to worse.

The Tremor family makes a return, minus Captain Kirk and Martin Keamy (Star Trek and Lost fans can attest). They kept the least interesting brother, the one who obviously needed the money, and introduce three new Tremor characters. The crazy sister, the dumb bigger brother and the hillbilly father. None of these new tremor characters are as interesting as the two missing. The film tries to fill that void, but it fails. Instead the fans get a poor imitation of one of the better aspects of the first film.

The action is lame and never feels as frantic as it should. The cheap explosions are goofy and laughable. We never get a chance to connect to any of the characters. In the first film, I was picking my favourite hit men, this one I had none. None of them are as cool, or as memorable.

The twist is lame and makes little to no sense. The writing of the film was slacking and obviously written so quickly to get the film into production that people must have really not read it. The director P.J. Pesce, seems to specialize in direct to video films. It shows, since he has no theatrical vision and the film feels very confined to its obvious production costs.

If you hated the first film, thought it was decent or just liked it, I would advise you to skip this one. I only recommend it if you are truly a die hard fan. Even then, I say proceed with caution.

4/10

Day 10: May 10th, 2010

Six Shooter



McDonagh wins an Oscar for this Short Film

After a man's wife dies he takes a train back home. On that train he meets a young couple who are also grieving and a young man who doesn't seem to give a damn about other people's emotions.

This is the first short to appear on this list, it probably won't be the last. I'm not limiting myself to feature films.

The story is relatively simple, four people on a train, each one has something in common. Someone in their lives has just died, each one deals with it differently. The young kid doesn't seem to give a damn, the couple cry and try to isolate themselves and the man seems to be relatively at ease, clearly hiding his true pain. Gleeson is the man in this role and he is the one who seems to be observing all the emotions on this train. Rúaidhrí Conroy is the motor mouth kid who has a really thick Irish accent, it's almost hard to tell what he is saying. The film belongs to these two characters and they are vastly different from one another.

The scenery outside is beautiful and showcases Ireland's cottage, farmland area. It's definitely a place I want to visit one day in my life. The setting of the film is entirely on a train, save for the opening and closing scenes. Despite the film being almost all dialogue, the movement of the train actually kept some tension up. Who is this kid and why he is so psycho.

For a short that is 30 minutes, it does its job. Well written, well directed and acted. The film looks nice and is quite the dark comedy. The monologue about the cow is both random and hilarious. The director, McDonagh, went on to direct In Bruges, an even darker comedy. You can see the similarities in the characters and the themes. Both films are shot in the same style, with a soft focus and of course star Brendan Gleeson.

This short went on to win an Oscar, I haven't seen the other films nominated so I can't say that this film deserved the win, but it is well done. It does what most films can't do and that is tell a consistent story with interesting characters.

7.5/10

Day 9: May 9th, 2010

State of Play



Well Written & Acted, A Very Smart Thriller

A congressmen's mistress is murdered and his friend, who is also a reported, decides to investigate the crime. During the investigations, he and his team uncover a political conspiracy and their lives are now at stake.

State of Play is a smart adult thriller that is never boring, or exhausting. It can be compared to All The Presidents Men, but relevant for today's themes and issues. The film takes some sides in a political ground, but to me it never really harms the film. I was so caught up in the investigation and the characters that I didn't seem to care for what the film's themes and messages are.

Russell Crowe leads the film, in a role that really lets him shine. He manages to be sloppy, brilliant and comedic all in one. Rachel McAdams, who I have a crush on, continues to prove why she is a smart and talented actress. She won't fall from grace like her Mean Girls co-star Lohan. Ben Affleck is in another role that I can tolerate. It seems that when the guy is in a supporting role or behind the camera, he shines. His boyish looks and every guy attitude is gone, but he still has that young up and coming attitude that actually suits this role. Crowe really does stand out in this film, I've never been a huge fan of his, but this is definitely an under-appreciated role.

The film is easy to keep track of, despite it's many twists and turns while unravelling the mystery. There are even way too many characters, but we are still able to know who's who, who's responsible for what and why. The script is clear and concise and the direction suits that as well. Nothing fancy, just bare bones story telling and a director that wants to tell that story. The film is thrilling, despite lacking in any chase sequences. One scene in which our lead is stuck in a parking lot with another man and a gun is intense, even if we've seen all of it before.

State of Play is a mature film that audience seemed to skip. Which makes it even more of a gem to watch. It has strong performance and a story that doesn't feel cheap. There are subplots that do seem a bit out of place, just to add some more characterization to these people. But I can get past it. State of Play is easily recommended.

7.5/10

Day 8: May 8th, 2010

Barb Wire




I Would Have Loved This When It First Came Out


A sort of remake of Casablanca set in the future and in a strip club? Pam Anderson is Barb Wire and she must help someone get on a plane to Canada, with contact lenses. Whatever else the plot is, do people really care?

This film was made, marketing and watched because of one thing and one thing only, Pamela Anderson. This was her naked sci/fi Hollywood film, the opening of the movie shows her stripping, showing her breasts and getting hit with water. Ooooh, so sexy. This was probably the one scene many kids watched over and over. The film itself is regarded as one of those, it's so bad it's good. I can totally see that and once I got pass Anderson's wooden acting, I actually enjoyed myself. Guilty as charged.

I said I would have loved this when it first came out. I say that because I was around 10 years old and a film like this, that is drenched in so called "sexiness" would have been imprinted on my mind. Seeing it for the first time in full when I'm 22, went to film school and have been on the internet since I was whatever age, the film doesn't strike me as sexy. Anderson does look good though and seeing her prance around in tight leather doesn't hurt either. Much better than what Halle Berry tried to do with Catwoman.

Anderson became famous for her breasts and that was the focus of the film. Every other shot is of her massive cleavage. Am I complaining? Not really. But we have porno for that, the catch is that Anderson is someone "somewhat" famous. There is a special feature on the DVD called SEXY OUTTAKES. This is ten minutes long and it is of her stripping with the water. Basically the entire opening, but for ten minutes.

Jango Fett from the Star Wars prequels is in this film, I found myself saying "Hey it's that guy" a lot every time a character came on screen. The film is campy, what else do I need to say? The acting is campy, the script is god-awful and taken from Casablanca, the nudity isn't even that good. I expected more, the film feels like a tease.

Barb Wire is like Showgirls. Made to appeal to the perverted crowd, only this one has explosions. I'm giving this one a high rating, for it's campiness feel. It's trash, but golden trash.

5.5/10

Day 7: May 7th, 2010

In The Loop



Political Satire Done Right.

Simon Foster, the British Minister for International Development accidentally states that war is unforeseeable. This ignites people from both the United States and the U.K. to bring out their political strategies for pro/anti war projects.

That's the best I could come up with regarding this film. I had a hard time following who was responsible for what, how much power they had and what was actually being done. Despite this confusion, the film was still funny and very well written. This is a smart comedy, maybe it was too smart for me, but I was still able to get the jokes because they were at a certain level of just the right amount of crudeness.

The humour is mostly dry, the typical British stuff you would expect. The film doesn't really have any laugh out loud moments, but there is enough smirking and smiling that I was happy with it. To describe the film, I would have to say it felt like Dr. Strangelove mixed with The Office. In content, style and even humour. I can, to an extent, include This Is Spinal Tap. I read one reviewer saying that what This Is Spinal Tap did for heavy metal, In The Loop will do for politics. I completely agree with this statement.

Despite your political views, you will still be able to enjoy In The Loop, although some people always have to find something and complain. It's relatively fast paced and if you don't pay attention, you might get lost in the plot. I got the end game, but how they get there was a bit muddy for me. I don't really reflect this in the writing, but my grasp of politics in general.

The cast is great and work well off each other. It was nice seeing how hectic the British side of things were. From clueless at some points and downright belligerent at others. I really dug James Gandolfini square off against Peter Capald. The whole scene was a who has the bigger pair of you know what.

If your looking for a smart comedy that doesn't involve sex jokes, teens or poop humour, then In The Loop is the adult sophisticated comedy you should check out. It sure has it's crude moments, but it feels appropriate in a weird way. I liked it, I just wish I was able to grasp it more so I could love it.

7/10

DAY 6: May 6th, 2010

Dead Snow




The second half of this film is brilliant.

On a trip up to a cottage in the snowy mountain tops a group of friends encounter some mean nasty Nazi zombies. That's right Nazi zombies. Can they survive? Will we care? Why are we watching a film about Nazi zombies?

There was a lot of hype around this film, simply for those two words. Nazi Zombies. The only other film I remember having hype around it based on a few words was Snakes On A Plane. Dead Snow is a Norwegian horror film that plays up the comedic aspect of actually having Nazi zombies in the film. The entire first half of this film is rubbish, but I couldn't help but have a smile on my face once the sh*t hit the fan.

The film falters on many accounts. Let's see, the acting is atrocious, the characters are dumb and clichéd as hell, some aspects of the film scream low budget, the story is non- existent, some characters exists for expository dialogue, and don't even get me started on the outhouse scene. All of these things exist in campy, crappy horror films. This is a campy crappy horror film.

If there is one thing I hate about recent horror, it's when they reference older horror films, as if to say to the audience "Hey kids, we've seen these older films, so that means we know our stuff". It is so obvious and lame that I want to hurl. Evil Breed did it and Dead Snow does it. One character is a film buff and there are many obvious horror references, such as The Evil Dead and Friday the 13th. He wears Braindead t-shirts and tells the characters not to get bitten by zombies. Vomit.

All of the night attack scenes are boring and hard to actually see. Nothing new yet, it's not until it's actually daylight does the film begin to get where it needed to be 30 minutes ago. This is where the film is having fun and the audience can too. This isn't your typical zombie film, these guys run fast and they actually fight you. Like, throwing punches and dropping elbows.

The make-up work on the zombies is adequate as are the costumes. They really do look like Nazi Zombies. The story never tells us why they are zombies though, they either forgot or they want you to fill in that blank. There is a small bit about the soldiers stealing gold and jewelry while they were alive. It seems that if you take one they come after you, but this plot point is really inconsistent. There is a character who randomly shows up, tells us everything we need to know about the history of the Nazi zombies and then he leaves. Thank you very much for this riveting character.

The gore is great, even if a lot of the blood is obvious CGI. The moment I had the biggest smile on my face was when two characters arm themselves with a shed full of weapons. Yes, even the obligatory chainsaw. The comedy really hits its stride in the rising action of the film. Intestines flying everywhere, machine gun snow-mobiles, amputation, it goes on and on.

I can only recommend this film if you dig what it's selling. Nazi Zombies, if that sounds like fun, join in. If the thought of it makes you wonder why people bother with this trash, obviously skip it. It's not the best horror comedy, but it's something that will put a smile on your face.

Number of times the words Nazi Zombies is mentioned: 8.
The Film: 6

6/10

DAY 5: May 5th, 2010

The Amateurs




If Only It Were That Easy...

Andy (Jeff Bridges) is a guy who doesn't do a whole lot with his life. He comes up with these extravagant ideas but none of them ever lead to anything. His wife leaves him because he can't go anywhere in life. Years later he comes up with the idea to make a porno film and he gets the townsfolk to help him.

For one thing, if only it were that easy to get women to agree to do pornography and for another, to make a film. The Amateurs, or The Moguls, whichever you want to call it, makes it seem like it is incredibly easy. Sure the characters have their problems on the sets, but in my experience it would never happen like that. Its all played up for comedic purposes I know, but it's just my one little nit pick.

The film has an all-star cast. Jeff Bridges leads this crazy cast of characters and it was really the characters that made the film work for me. Ted Danson is Moose, the gay guy who thinks he's straight. Tim Blake Nelson is Barney, a guy who's been in love with this one woman who always turns him down. Joe Pantoliano plays some idiot (that's his characters name) who gets made fun of a lot, but he wants to prove himself as a writer/director. William Fichtner is Otis, the guy who knows how to get things done and Patrick Fugit is the whiz kid who knows how to film everything. There are two other characters who are always together, they go by the names of Moe and Ron. Everyone calls them moron.

The Amateurs works on a few levels and comes just underneath on others. The cast is great and really help the film. The writing is fine, the comedy is there and some of it is funny. One scene in which two characters discuss the logistics of the size of a black man's penis is interesting. Unfortunately the film never feels like the comedy it should be. To compare it to another film in the same area would be Zack and Miri Make A Porno. Both involve porno films, both involve porno jokes and both seem like they could have been so much funnier.

Jeff Bridges narrates the film much like Robert Downey Jr. does in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. He knows this is a movie and he address the audience as such. His character Andy, tries to prove to himself he can make something of his life. He wants to be able to have a relationship with his son. His wife has remarried and the guy is stinking rich. We've seen that before. What this film does differently is that Andy doesn't seem to care about the new husband. He is never jealous and doesn't try to win back the heart of his ex-wife. It was interesting to see it play out like that because 90% of the time it would go the other way.

Lauren Graham and Jeanne Tripplehorn are both in the film and both are severely underused. Specifically Graham, I still do not know why she exists in this film. She is suppose to be the romantic interest of the lead character, but none of that happens until the last 5 minutes. She is completely useless. To sum up, the cast really makes the film better than what it actually is. There is a good movie here, but it just falls short in too many areas for me to be able to recommend it as a comedy.

6/10

Day 4: May 4th, 2010

How To Train Your Dragon



One Of Dreamworks Better Efforts



Hiccup is a viking, the only problem is he doesn't seem to fit in with everyone else. He's scrawny, scared and can't kill a dragon when given the opportunity. Instead, he makes a unique friendship with the one dragon that people never seem to see. He learns that everything he knew about dragons was wrong and he must stop his father and the other vikings from killing more of them.

How To Train Your Dragon seemed like another animated film that would come and go at the snap of a finger. Yet, it somehow managed to be the best review film of the year (so far) and rake in the cash. Word of mouth spread and along with the critical backing, the film has managed to stay in the top spot for awhile. So I decided to give it a chance. While the film is not as emotionally engaging as other animated films of recent years, it still manages to have fun and entertain.

The voice acting from all was really well done. I had fun spotting who was who and each one gives their character that unique little bit of spice. Jay Baruchel has whiny brat down to a tee, almost to the point of annoyance. With the exception of America Ferrera, I was able to point out every voice actor, yes even the guy from Cloverfield. Her character, Astrid, who isn't in the book, is the love interest of our lead. She is the tough one who is jealous of Hiccup when he starts to get the spotlight for knowing how to handle the dragons. This relationship is never the focus point and seemed rushed, but I can live with it.

The animation at times looks marvelous, the fur the vikings wear looks great. At other time it looks a bit weak, specifically the lead dragon. I don't know if it was the stylistic choice of making him look like a cat, but it looked like the weakest part of the animation to me. Which is funny, because the dragon was the best part of the film. Toothless, as he is called, was funny, cute and kick-ass. The scenes in which he is flying with Hiccup were really well done and added the sense of excitement and adventure the film needed.

It has laughs here and there, but never did I find it overly funny. Instead it plays out the family friendly adventure spin. The story itself is nothing new, young outcast needs to win the hearts of those around him. Finds an unfamiliar friendship and uses it to his advantage. The setting of dragons and vikings was the new angle the film gave us. The relationship between Hiccup and toothless is a nice addition to a spew of films in which the lead character makes friends with an animal.

While How To Train Your Dragon doesn't go leaps and bounds over anything else, it is one of the better films Dreamworks has managed to kick out recently. Both adults and kids will enjoy this film.

8/10

Day 3: May 3rd, 2010

EXTRACT



Is It Bad To Say I Wanted More Ben Affleck?

Mike Judge is back again with another comedy about an every day guy who owns an extract company. After a series of freak accidents one employee loses a testicle. Things go from bad to worse when Joel starts to have sexual feelings towards a new temp. He's not getting any at home so his friend tells him to get a gigalo to seduce his wife so he won't feel guilty about sleeping with the temp. Of course he's on drugs when he agrees to this, so the next day he realizes his mistake. Throw in someone stealing things from the employees, the selling of the company possibly going sour and an annoying neighbour and Joel is about to explode.

Pretty lengthy description of the film, I've left out some bits and pieces here and there, but I really couldn't care to tell you. We'll all move on. The film is another Mike Judge piece, so it will have it's fans. I'm not one of them. With Office Space, I found that I liked it more upon repeated viewings, I won't bother to watch this one again.

The cast tries their best with the material. Kristen Wig has nothing to do, Clifton Collins Jr. is forgotten throughout the film, David Koechner is dumbed down to one joke repeated throughout, J.K. Simmons looks like he wants to get the hell out of this movie, Mila Kunis has hardly any screen time to do anything worthwhile and Jason Bateman uses his old comedy routine he did in Arrested Development. He's a good guy trying to do things right, but gets caught in these weird and awkward situations.

Ben Affleck saves this film from total disaster, his supporting role as the best friend with the worst ideas is really great. I should have known, since he was the best thing in the trailers too. His look alone had me smiling.

I guess I'm just not that much a fan of Judge and his comedy. I was never into Beavis and Butthead and I hated King of the Hill. Extract is a comedy that will make you smirk a few times, but never laugh. It tries to be too adult and mature, which makes it lose it's sense of comedy. The story it was trying to tell is uninteresting, the characters are uninteresting and the comedy is uninteresting.

In the end Extract is a mess of a film, there were parts that were mildly entertaining, but it never went in the right direction. There could have been room for interesting plot twists, but instead it played it safe. Extract is completely forgettable and probably only worth your time if you're a big Mike Judge fan.

4/10

Day 2: May 2nd, 2010

Revolutionary Road



The American dream is actually a nightmare


A young couple living in 1950's suburbia think they are different from all the other families living the American Dream. Although, they soon find out that not every dream comes true and they fall exactly into the situations they didn't want to be in. Their marriage is falling apart, they have trouble raising their children and they want out of this lifestyle.

Sam Mendes is a filmmaker who knows exactly what he wants, which is why he would want to work on this film. Revolutionary Road is probably his least interesting film, story wise. After-all, it's just about two people who try to cope with their lives. There is no motivational plot to it, but the thing about this film is that it doesn't need one. We are getting a glimpse into the lives of two people who had big dreams and realized that they had to sacrifice them in order to live their lives. It's sad, but it also rings true.

The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, as the married couple who constantly fight. Everyone called this film the "What If Jack and Rose Ended Up Together" movie. Yet it is so much more than that. They give powerful performances, which unfortunately were overlooked during the Oscar season. Another Titanic star, Kathy Bates, gives her support to the couple as the real estate agent who thinks the world of them. She has a son, who is mentally unstable and asks to bring him over for dinner one night. Michael Shannon plays the son and he steals both scenes he is in. For a guy who is deemed insane, he is the only one who speaks the truth.

I watched this flick because so many people told me how depressing it was. While it was depressing I didn't find it to be that bad. The most depressing aspect of the film is how relatable it is to real life. This story happens everywhere and that is the sad part.

The cinematography is great, the 1950's feel was spot on and really gave the film more of a cinematic sense of wonder to it. Roger Deakins seems to know exactly what is needed for every film he takes on. The look and feel of the film here is so simple, yet so beautiful at the same time.

Finally, I can see why people may not like this film. It's definitely an acquired taste. I was not in love with it by any means and for those involved it's not their best work. Instead it's a film to enjoy once. I wouldn't bother watching it again because the pace is long and I feel that I won't be as engaged a second time.

On a final note, why do guys from the 1950's only last about 15 seconds?

7/10

Day 1: May 1st, 2010

Nightmare On Elm Street



An Hour and a Half of Cheap By The Book Horror Scares

Yes, this is cheating a little bit but I wasn't going to let this one go to waste. So instead, I'm making it my first entry.

The children on Elm street are all having the same nightmare, a horribly burned man with a glove of knives on his hand trying to kill them. If you die in your sleep, you die in real life. This is the re-invention of the horror icon Freddy Krueger.

First it was Leatherface, then Jason and now Freddy. The Michael Bay produced horror vehicles are back in full swing with more teenagers to die, more blood to splatter and more CGI effects in place of actual special effects. It was only a matter of time before one of the most famous horror icons got his remake and here it is, with a new actor behind the hat and sweater. The original Nightmare on Elm Street has a special place in my heart. Watching it at 2 in the morning at a cottage in the middle of the woods really made for a frightening experience. His reappearance in later films made him more of a comical villain than someone to really be afraid of, but now those who are bringing him back want to take him, not only back to his horrific original self, but to dive even deeper and make him more frightening than ever before.

They succeed in making this version of Freddy more scary than his previous outings and more real with the make-up of being a burned victim, but in the end, this character just isn't as scary as he once was. Jackie Earle Haley does a magnificent job as Freddy, which is saying something because he's taking over the role of someone who's been doing it for 20 years and he's covered in make up for most of the film. Even though he does his Rorschach voice again, it's still well done and nice to hear. He stands out in an otherwise lame and lazy horror remake. You know the film is going to have problems when you see Freddy in full in the first 5 minutes.

To be fair, this isn't a total train wreck. There are worse horror remakes out there *cough* Prom Night *cough*. But this Nightmare is too serious for such a silly concept. We dive immediately into the problem, with a murder of one of the kids. We are then told that the kids have been seeing Freddy for sometime now. Which is lazy writing. We are already too late into the story. We should be with the characters when they are first encountering him, not keeping it a secret from others. We can't connect to these characters at all.

There are plenty moments of really bad CGI. The scary and famous scene in the original when Freddy leans out from the wallpaper watching the character sleeping was some pretty scary stuff. Here, it is an afterthought and it looks horribly fake. The film relies way too much on fake, cheap and useless scares. I thought we were getting past these stupid things. The film uses it so much that you expect it to happen and it loses all meaning. Thus, the film becomes formulaic. Character nods off, they are asleep without knowing it, see Freddy, cheap scare, they wake up. Repeat for every other character in the film and you begin to fill up the 95 minute time slot.

Now, for fans of the series, I can say this about the films. Every death in the nightmare films were creative. Puppeteering death? Awesome stuff. Here he slices people with his glove. Nothing spectacular. I guess since they tried to make him serious they wanted to take out all the fun and exciting deaths, instead they tried to keep it real. Well, Friday the 13th managed to keep it's fun and cheesy attitude, this nightmare doesn't and it falls flat. It was too serious for it's own good and has no terror, no thrills and no suspense.

Our lead, Nancy, Rooney Mara, is not memorable at all. She is no Langenkamp and the whole time I was watching her I kept thinking, "This is what Abigail Breslin will look like in 10 years". Clancy Brown is underused and instead of paying attention to Kyle Gallner, I kept trying to remember where I have seen him before. The answer is the equally lame horror film Jennifer's Body.

I can give this film praise where it is deserved. Freddy looks great and is more terrifying than what his previous installments had him be and the ending is clearly the highlight. I was cheering, which was a surprise to me. The sound design is really great as well. Freddy's voice is all over the place and at times I thought he was in the theatre. But in the end, this Nightmare remake is really a disappointment.

5/10