Tag: Movie Review

Geekscape Movie Reviews: ‘Oldboy’

by S.J. Borger

Oldboy, Spike Lee’s remake of the Park Chan-wook film of the same name (which won numerous awards for its grim violence, shocking twists, explicit yet barbarically beautiful fight scenes and atmospheric cinematography) tries very hard. It tries very hard to shock. It tries very hard to be grim, gritty, stark and compelling–yet nothing really coalesces. Moments within the film are memorable–certainly the corridor fight springs to mind–but the film never reaches the psychotic heights or perverse lows of its predecessor, and as such, falls flat.

Josh Brolin as Joe Ducuett in Spike Lee's remake of "Oldboy"
Josh Brolin as Joe Doucett in Spike Lee’s remake of “Oldboy”

Josh Brolin stars as Joe Doucett, a not-so-nice ad man with a serious drinking problem, a ex-wife who’s sick of him, and a three-year-old daughter whose birthday party he misses in order to take out an important client (whose wife he hits on, losing the account and sparking a night of black-out drinking). The film does an truly admirable job of recreating the era (the action starts in 1993), and Brolin is engaging as the debauched golden boy–including carrying 20 or so extra pounds.

At the end of the night, refused by his one remaining friend (Michael Imperioli as bar-owner Chucky), Brolin is lured by a young woman with a yellow umbrella and abducted–we don’t know who by–to a faux cheap-motel room which is quickly shown to be a private jail of some kind. Brolin’s descent into isolated madness, and his subsequent fight back to sanity, is perhaps the best part of the film. Brolin is alone on the screen for a chunk of the film and he maintains a compelling presence through out.

Josh Brolin in "Oldboy"
Josh Brolin in “Oldboy”

His prison is not without some distractions, namely a TV (with delightfully period-accurate programming) which airs an America’s Most Wanted-esque type show. Through this, he learns that his ex-wife was brutally raped and murdered and his DNA (removed by his unseen jailors) was at the scene. His daughter was adopted and is, apparently, a cello prodigy.

This incites Doucett to sober up, exercise, and plan his escape. It takes him twenty years to carve a tunnel, but before he can use it, he is released out into the world, complete with iPhone, cash, and a ticking clock: find out who abducted him, and why, or his daughter dies. The woman with the yellow umbrella leads him through a football field (where he violently attacks three college guys) and then to a mobile medical clinic, where he meets Marie (Elizabeth Olson), a lost soul who is drawn to Doucett and ends up helping him unravel the mystery.

Josh Brolin in "Oldboy"
Josh Brolin in “Oldboy”

What follows is a series of set-piece violence-porn, beautifully choreographed (see above mention of the corridor fight) and almost random plot twists forced down the films gullet in order to arrive at its ‘shocking’ ending. Changes from the original weaken the premise (and don’t seem to be made for any practical reason) and reduce the characters to caricatures.

The cast is strong but cannot save the film from its combined issues of plotting, pacing and predictability. Samuel L Jackson (as Chaney, the Jailer) seems lost in his Square-Enix-esque costumes and hairstyle; Sharlto Copley (Adrian/The Stranger) loses any menace with a off again/on again vaguely European accent and seems as lost as the audience is as to why he’s driven to do what he does.

We were left wanting to like this film–Brolin especially earns high praise for his work in it–but it is reductive and spectacle driven. We recommend watching the original if you’re looking for some revenge-fantasy for your Thanksgiving holiday.

The film is rated R and opens wide on November 27th, 2013.

Geekscape Score: 2.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrLcnrnEqyI

Geekscape Movie Reviews: ‘Pacific Rim’

by Dennis Finocchiaro

Pacific Rim could go either way for viewers, depending on the person’s movie-persona. So while I really enjoyed the film, I could also see why some people absolutely loathed the thing.

If you enjoy a movie with an interesting and dynamic plot, good acting and an exciting storyline (which I always enjoy) Pacific Rim was well worth purchasing. The special effects were awesome, and I can only imagine how they would have looked in theaters (if I’d only made it to see this film). The creatures were so realistic on the Blu-Ray that I have to assume they looked breathtaking on the big screen. The robots were completely believable as well, and overall, the substantial special effects made this movie even better.

pacific-rim3

If, however, you wanted to see an action-packed fight-filled adventure, then sure, there were some slower moments. The film often focused on the human element in a situation involving alien attack, in much the same way The Walking Dead does so in a zombie apocalypse.

The main character, Raleigh Becket, played by Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy), is part of a pair of brothers who run one of the giant robots. He must overcome his brother’s death after an alien attack, and does so by joining the crews that are building giant walls around cities for protection. Eventually, his old boss wants him back in the robot (called Jaeger) program, and of course he meets a possible romantic interest, played by Rinko Kikuchi (The Brothers Bloom); she wants to pilot a Jaeget to take vengeance for her parents’ death.

Meanwhile, a side story is that of the company’s two scientists, played by Rick Moranis Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia) and Burn Gorman (Torchwood, The Dark Knight Rises), an odd-couple pairing who bring some light-hearted comedy into the story. Gorman’s character is focused on the math side of things, and Day’s is more about the aliens, and the two give the storyline a bit of much-needed humor.

My favourite scene was the almost-expected cameo (considering this is a Guillermo del Toro film) by Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Alien Resurrection) as the one-eyed illegal alien parts dealer Hannibal Chow.

As a fan of Guillermo Del Toro’s films, I didn’t really see his personal touch on the much as much as I expected to. I wanted more of a Pan’s Labyrinth or even a Hellboy feel, but it came up a bit short in that area.

Overall, I really did enjoy the film, and give it 3/5 stars. Pacific Rim is available now on Amazon.

Let us know what you thought of the film. Did you love it, hate it, or not really care either way?

PacificRimNew08

Geekscape Movie Reviews: ‘Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa’

by Dennis Finocchiaro

I was lucky enough to catch a sneak preview of  Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa, and I have to say that I never would have guessed that it could possibly be as funny as it was. Maybe I was going in with low expectations (I’ve never been a fan of Jackass) but I was pleasantly surprised with this one.

Writing this without spoilers is tough, but I really want to express how hilarious the film is without giving anything away. Don’t get me wrong, if you’re more of an Oscar-worthy film-goer, this is NOT for you. But if you want to laugh to the point where you hurt yourself (literally…my friend called me on the ride home to ask if I’d pulled muscles from laughing so hard, like she did) then definitely check it out.

BadGrandpa1

The plot is simple. 86 year-old Irving, played by Johnny Knoxville (Jackass, The Ringer) is sent across country with his grandson, played by Jackson Nicoll (The Fighter) when the boy’s mother is sent to prison. Irving is bringing the child to his father, who reluctantly agreed to take him in (because someone told him he’d get money from the government). The pair travel around pulling pranks on real people and hilarity ensues.

There were a few surprises for me. First, I had no clue that Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and the upcoming Her) was both in the film and one of the writers along with Knoxville. Also, Nicoll was excellent and effortlessly kept up with the humor and back-and-forth conversations with real people. The kid is just naturally funny. Finally, unlike many of the Jackass films, this one has a plot that they follow, shooting some scenes between pranks, that made the movie a bit deeper than one would expect. After all, the kid has been left behind by his mom, his grandfather wants nothing to do with him, and his dad is only taking him in for the alleged $600 a month he thinks he’ll get from the state. That makes for a little bit of emotion.

jackass-presents-bad-grandpa

I guess that my expectations were low as I was afraid that the trailers(here and here) gave away all of the funny scenes. I was completely wrong. Not only are there plenty of pranks not shown in the trailers, but the ones that are become so much funnier when seen in the greater context of the film itself. Also, Knoxville was also completely believable as an old man (as usual).

Overall, I give the film two different scores. If you are interested in award-winning acting and serious plots and nothing else, then the movie gets 1/5 stars and you’re going to hate every second of it. If you want to watch something and just laugh your ass off, then this film gets 4/5 -it’s hilarious, it’s original, and it’s a whole lot of fun. Check it out this Friday, and be sure to let us know whether or not you loved it.

Geekscape Movie Reviews: ‘Blood of Redemption’

by Dennis Finocchiaro

When you put a movie in and the film stars Dolph Lundgren (Expendables, Universal Soldier) and Billy Zane (Titanic, The Phantom), your expectations are likely low. With that in mind, Blood of Redemption was worth watching.

The plot is simple. Lundgren plays the bodyguard of a mob boss whose sons (played by Zane and Gianni Capaldi) mean the world to him – enough so that he wants out of the business and for the two of them to live normal lives. After his murder and the subsequent arrest of his older son, Lundgren has to figure out who killed the boss and framed his son for identity theft.

As with almost any action film, the fighting scenes were well done. The only negative would have to be the random scenes that were sped up or slowed down: it seemed almost like some of the actors were getting a bit old for the fight scenes, so the editor tried using speed changes to make it a bit more exciting. Blood of Redemption‘s soundtrack was so bad that it was almost distracting. Some of the chase scenes weren’t exactly exciting either. But that all sounds so negative: it was still a fun, guilty pleasure viewing.

stars

Lundgren’s character narrates the film, which definitely gives a lot away. While it seemed the director wanted the audience to be surprised at some of the later revelations of the film (who orchestrated the whole thing, major characters dying just when you think they’re safe) it was a a bit predictable. And some of the ideas (and even some word-for-word lines) were obviously stolen from The Godfather.

One of the better points of the film was the sexy Jelly Howie (Reach, Compound Fracture), who played Zane’s wife and co-conspirer. She gave the movie a little of the hot edge that every action film needs.

Another bright spot was actor Vinnie Jones (Snatch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) as the man who takes over for the family as it falls. He’s always fun to watch, and while he didn’t have many action sequences, his acting was decent enough to make him believable in the role.

Overall, I think the main reason I thought this film was fun was that you don’t watch a film like this expecting Oscar-winning performances or comical one-liners. It’s about sitting down and watching a guilty-pleasure action film. And with that in mind, Blood of Redemption delivers.

I would rate it a 3 out of 5.

Blood of Redemption is out now and available on Amazon.

http://youtu.be/lyVkDn0sPxo

Geekscape Movie Reviews: ‘Wreck-It Ralph’

by Derek Kraneveldt

Video game movies are a weird anomaly. They’re projects that have plots, atmospheres, and scenes already perfectly laid out,  yet whoever is in charge typically decides to throw all that away, and whatever ends up releasing is an abysmal shell of what could and should have been. Without fail, video game movies SUCK (the latest example of this would be last week’s Silent Hill: Revalation).

So what happens when you make a video game movie about a game that never existed? Wreck-It Ralph is born, and apparently it freaking rocks.

Ralph’s home game, Fix-It Felix Jr.

The premise of Wreck-It Ralph is phenomenal, yet so simple that I’m really surprised it hadn’t been thought of before. Ralph has been doing the job of video game villain for 30 years, and he’s tired of it. The bad guy doesn’t want to be the bad guy anymore, so Ralph sets out to prove that he’s not as much of a villain as everyone makes him out to be. Unbeknownst to Ralph, his leaving the Fix-It Felix arcade cabinet sets off a series of events that could get his own game unplugged, as well as many others in the arcade. Along the way Ralph meets an array of loveable characters, and the film also features countless cameos from other games throughout its duration.

The bad guy never gets invited to parties.

The world of Wreck-It Ralph takes an almost Toy Story approach to explaining how it works. When people are around (the hours that the arcade is open) everyone simply does what they were programmed to do. After hours however, each character has a life of their own just as we do outside of our own work. Being a villain, Ralph is not a very popular guy, and after 30 years he’s understandably lonely and upset about the whole situation.

Ralph ends up in game central (a power bar, which brilliantly explains how the games connect to one another) in order to find a game in which he can win himself a medal (meaning he’ll be seen as a hero instead of a villain). He’ll eventually meet the hilarious Vanellope von Schweetz, an adorable outcast (just like Ralph) that just wants to be a part of her own game (the colorful Kart racer Sugar Rush). The relationship that grows between the two is where Wreck-It Ralph really shines: the pair are hilarious, touching, and at times heartbreaking.

2012’s most adorable animated duo.

As mentioned above, Wreck-It Ralph‘s premise and plot are effective and engaging, and thankfully this goes for the rest of the film too. Voice acting in the movie is top-notch from every single character: there is no weak point, though John C. Reilly (Ralph) and Sarah Silverman (Vanellope) stand out as especially excellent. Visuals are equally impressive, with detailed characters and worlds that tend to go on for as far as you could possibly see. I also love the manner in which the art style changes based on the era of the game the characters are in: the modern Hero’s Duty features hundreds upon hundreds of enemies in a bleak Gears of War style world, while the classic look of Fix-It Felix has sparse environments filled with simple looking characters with choppy animation, just as you’d expect from an older game.

‘Hero’s Duty’ a hilarious satire of the modern FPS

The fact that Disney was able to get so many character cameos from so many different companies is something that I definitely can’t go without mentioning. I don’t want to spoil anything here, but every time one of these recognizable faces showed up on screen, I couldn’t help but smile. There are so many references to different titles that it’s certainly hard to keep up with them all, but I’m sure with each watch of Wreck-It Ralph you’ll pick up on things that you never noticed before.

Bad-Anon is just the tip of the cameo iceberg.

The only real problem that I had with Wreck-It Ralph is that things tend to flow a bit too conventionally. Ralph and Vanellope are both outcasts who form an important, life changing relationship. One of them messes the whole thing up, and it isn’t until the character’s darkest hour that they realize the massive error that they’ve made. Pretty standard stuff, and it slightly drags down an otherwise quite original experience. The film may also be slightly predictable for either extremely intelligent children or anyone over 15, but at its core Wreck-It Ralph is a family film, so I can’t fault it for being easy to understand.

Is Wreck-It Ralph worth your quarters? The answer is undoubtedly yes. Phil Johnston, Jennifer Lee, Rich Moore and the rest of the team have crafted an astonishing, believable, touching world worthy of repeat viewings, and one that will most definitely leave you itching for more. Whatever your age, you’re guaranteed to leave the theater smiling.

Wreck-It Ralph scores a nostalgic 4/5, and is one of the best animated films of the year.

 

Geekscape Movie Reviews: Hotel Transylvania

by AllieHanley

Hotel Transylvania is a place where monsters can get away from it all. Lavish rooms, relaxing spas, exquisite dining facilities. What more could a monster want in a vacation?

Adam Sandler plays the over-protective Vampire dad.

Protected by a evil forest and a cemetery filled with the un-dead, Hotel Transylvania is more than just a sanctuary for monsters. Designed by Dracula (Adam Sandler), not only as a refuge from humans for fellow monsters but also as a place to shelter and protect his vampire daughter, Mavis (Selena Gomez). Problem is, she’s growing up and about to celebrate her 118th birthday, which means she finally gets to venture out into the real world and perhaps even travel to Hawaii where her parents met.

Sounds cute for a cartoon but is it original? Here’s a 3 sentence break down of what you will endure if you take your child or younger relatives to see it: Over-protective father concocts elaborate schemes to protect daughter from the real world. Daughter craves freedom and then suddenly “zings” with young, human man; And Dad is pissed. Daughter is broken-hearted when Dad kicks new love to the curb but he then feels remorse and makes it right.

That’s the break down of Sony’s new animated film, Hotel Transylvania slated to hit theaters this Friday, Sept. 28th. It stars a ensemble cast of well known actors including Cee-Lo Green as “Murray the Mummy,” David Spade as a pair of spectacles aka; The Invisible Man, Steve Buscemi as the leader of the pack, -as in a Werewolf Pack. His wife is played by Fran Drescher  who true-to-form reincarnates her nagging nanny persona for the role.

Obviously it’s a cartoon and caters to kids but it could have been so much more if writers had been given more leeway to play up the characters and give them more than superficial personalities. The story is beyond formulaic, and not necessarily a bad thing, -when writing for younger kids.  Credited writing goes to co-writers Peter Baynham (Arthur Christmas) and Robert Smigel (Saturday Night Live), who fail to flesh out the characters to a degree that adult viewers will feel much affinity for by the end. I brought a 12 year old with me (I drag her to all the kids stuff) and she liked it and had some giggles and laughs while I was nodding off towards the end.

The film really feels like a re-worked Adam Sandler film but even so it still delivers enough laughs that it’s better than most. The beginning story was especially endearing and near the end of the second act there is an action scene with Dracula chasing Jonathan on magical, floating tables that was well done, but even so it’s not quality enough as adult only entertainment. My 12 year old niece liked it well enough. As usual the 3D is a rip off and a way to bring in more revenue. I recommend this film for families that want to get out of the house and have something cute and fun to do with the kids… otherwise as adult entertainment goes, stay away!

C

Film opens Sept. 28th.PG, 1 hr. 31 min.

Animation, Kids & Family, Comedy

Directed By: Genndy Tartakovsky

Additional Cast: Molly Shannon, Fran Drescher

In Theaters: Sep 28, 2012 Wide

Sony Pictures

Geekscape Movie Reviews: The Perks Of Being A Wallflower

by Scott Alminiana

This weekend saw the limited release of the big-screen adaptation of the Stephen Chbosky novel The Perks of Being a Wallflower. While I’ve never read the book I did enjoy the movie immensely. Major credit for this goes to the fantastic cast of Logan Lerman, Emma Watson and Ezra Miller, with a supporting cast that includes Paul Rudd, Mae Whitman and Johnny Simmons among others. The movie was adapted and directed by Stephen Chbosky himself and this seems to only help make the movie that much more enjoyable as you can tell he truly has a connection and understanding of the story and what made the novel work.

The movie centers around Charlie (Logan Lerman) as he is about to enter high school as a freshman in 1991. Charlie narrates the story, via a voice-over, as he writes letters to an unknown person. It’s in these voice-overs that we initially learn that Charlie is a withdrawn and troubled kid. Upon entering school, Charlie has no friends and on his first day the only friend he seemingly makes is his English teacher played by Paul Rudd. Before too long though Charlie meets Patrick (Ezra Miller, who gives a fantastic performance), a flamboyantly hilarious senior and his step-sister Sam (a stunning Emma Watson with a flawless American accent). It’s Patrick and Sam who take Charlie under their wing and welcome him to, as Sam states in one part of the movie, the island of misfit toys. Together they discover music, such as David Bowie’s Heroes, and revel in things such as midnight showings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. There are subplots including Mae Whitman as a buddhist punker friend of the group who dates Charlie to some humorous effect. There’s also another subplot including Patrick’s relationship with Johnny Simmons’ closeted quarterback character.

This movie has some pretty dark parts in it such as depression and suicide, but it’s these parts that make you realize that this isn’t your typical Hollywood high school movie. This is a movie that digs deeper and shows how mean kids really are in high school and the alienation and confusion most of us once felt oh so long ago. Logan Lerman, Ezra Miller and Emma Watson all give great performances that make you believe that these characters truly exist. As I said in the beginning of the review, Stephen Chbosky adapted and directed this from his own novel and his knowledge of the era and his love of the characters is present throughout. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is now open in Los Angeles and New York but hopefully will be opening in a theater near you. If and when it does, it is definitely a movie you should go see.

Geekscape Movie Reviews: 10 Years

by Scott Alminiana

From writer/director Jamie Linden comes 10 Years, the story of a group of friends who gather for their ten year reunion only to realize they all still have some growing up to do. The movie features an impressive cast with the likes of Channing Tatum (sorry ladies, he keeps his clothes on for this one), Rosario Dawson, Justin Long, Anthony Mackie, Oscar Isaac, Ari Graynor and Chris Pratt.

As previously stated the story revolves around the ten year high school reunion of a group of friends and it centers around Jake (Channing Tatum) as he drives into town with his girlfriend Jess, played by Tatum’s real-life wife Jenna Dewan-Tatum. Jake wants to propose to Jess but is waiting for the right moment. They meet up at the house of married friends Sam (Graynor) and Cully (Pratt) with the rest of the old gang for some good old fashioned pre-partying. From there it’s off to reunion and the rest of the film is pretty paint by numbers.

This isn’t a bad thing per say, each member of the cast has their moment to shine. Chris Pratt and Oscar Isaac are the best parts of the movie as far as I’m concerned. Pratt steals just about every scene he’s in as Cully. See, in high school Cully was sort of a dick as well as a bully and that’s something that he wants to make right by appologizing to the nerds that he tormented back in the day. Of course as he tries to make amends he also happens to be in the process of getting shit faced, so hilarity naturally occurs. As for Oscar Isaac’s character Reeves, he’s the guy who made it big as a musician after high school with a hit song. The rest of his classmates continusely come up to him at the reunion expressing their love of his music but Reeves only pays them half attention because there’s only one girl he has his sights on. That girl is Elise, played by the lovely Kate Mara, and she was the girl that Reeves had a crush on in high school. Of course she didn’t know this though.

10 Years isn’t going to win any awards or break new ground in the genre, but it is far from a bad movie. The cast is great and they all work wonders in their roles no matter how big or small their parts may be. This movie makes for a good choice as a date-night movie as both halves of the couple will be able to find something they enjoy in it. I was thoroughly entertained through out the movie and it struck a few cords in me as well. This is my ten year high school reunion so I was able to connect with these characters a little more closely.  If I could go to my ten year reunion and get my Kate Mara that would be awesome, but sadly reality isn’t like a movie and Facebook makes going to high school reunions a moot point. Just skip your high school reunions and go see 10 Years instead, it’ll be far more entertaining and less expensive. Trust me.

Geekscape Movie Reviews: The Bourne Legacy

by Scott Alminiana

The Bourne Legacy opens in theatres this weekend and it’s a movie I really wanted to like but I just couldn’t. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a bad movie. Not by any means, it’s just not a very good movie.

The movie is the sequel to the Matt Damon’s Bourne movies just without Matt Damon… and Jason Bourne. It is supposed to be Universal’s continuation of the franchise, taking place in the world of Jason Bourne but featuring a new character. This time around we get Jeremy Renner as Aaron Cross, an operative not unlike Bourne, who’s caught up in the fall-out of the events from the previous movies. Renner is good in the role and does his best to work with what he’s got, which sadly isn’t much due to a script from director/co-writer Tony Gilroy. Gilroy, who co-wrote the previous movies, was promoted to the director’s chair this time out and does his best to prove that the Bourne franchise still has legs.

Unfortunately, the script has some major problems, one of the most glaring being it’s pacing issues. The movie clocks in at 125 minutes but feels at least 20 minutes longer. That’s not good. The first act of the movie takes waaaay to long to get the ball rolling and set up the pieces (that don’t move very quickly once their set). The movie is compounded by a needlessly complicated plot. The over-all plot of the movie is actually pretty simple and can be summed up without spoilers: While Jason Bourne runs loose during the events of the 2nd and 3rd Bourne movies, Aaron Cross and the rest of the agents are wanted dead. The project is ordered shut down (an order given by a crisis controlling Ed Norton who never seems to leave the same room the entire film) which is simple enough to do since the agents need some magical pills from the government to keep going. Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) can help cure Aaron of this need but obviously it’s going to take some running and close-quarters fighting to do it. Cut to a few decent action scenes and end the movie with Moby’s Extreme Ways so that the audience knows it really is a Bourne movie (without any Bourne). Sounds simple enough, right? But the movie tells that plot in the most complicated way it possibly can, as if a straightforward narrative wasn’t good enough to continue a film series built on straightforward narratives. I’m still stunned as to how that happened.

The cast is quite impressive. Along with Stacy Keach, Albert Finney, Scott Glenn, David Strathairn and Joan Allen make what can best be best described as brief cameos, probably just to remind us that this takes place in the Bourne universe. Edward Norton is practically wasted in his role as CIA “badguy” Eric Byer. They stuck him in that room for the entirety of the movie and told him to be the evil spook (I actually think that may have been the direction given to him). Rachel Weisz isn’t bad but is given an under-written damsel in distress role, so there’s really only so much an actress can do with that. And Joan Allen gets solid billing even though she’s in the movie 4 more minutes than I am (and I’m not in the movie…).

The movie has a few good action sequences that could have been better but suffer from some poor cinematography and editing. Director of photography Robert Elswit has worked on some great movies such as The Town, There Will Be Blood, and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, so I’ve got to place the blame on Gilroy. This is only his third movie, with Michael Clayton and Duplicity being his previous movies (and neither of them carrying this much action). Excessively covered, hand held and quickly cut action scenes don’t always result in action.

If it sounds like I’m being harsh on this movie, I’m trying not to be. Like I said at the beginning, I really wanted to like this movie. I loved all of the ingredients of it but sadly The Bourne Legacy just feels overstuffed and undercooked. Maybe they will get the recipe right on the next try though. As a fan of the franchise, I know I’d still watch it.

Geekscape Movie Reviews: Warriors Of The Rainbow: Seediq Bale

by ThrillMurray

Touted as the most expensive Taiwanese film to date, Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale was actually created for a rather reasonable $25 million. Produced by John Woo, the film stars Lin Ching-Tai, Da Ching, and a plethora of other actors you’ve never heard of. The only star power can be found in Masanobu Ando, who you may (or may not if you’re lucky) have seen in Sukiyaki Western Django. With these limited resources, Writer and Director Wei Te-Sheng struggles to tell a very large and very significant story in Taiwanese history with mixed results.

The film is reported to be a factual representation of the Wushe Incident, an uprising of Taiwanese natives against Japanese invaders which took place in 1930. The film follows the story of Mouna Rudo, a proud warrior who rises to the responsibility of chief of the Seediq tribe at the turn of the 20th century. It is a tumultuous time, as Taiwan has been ceded from China to Japan. Mouna, the Seediq, and other once proud and warring tribes have become domesticated under Japanese oppression. Then, in 1930, Mouna leads the natives in a violent and frantic uprising. You probably don’t have to have a degree in Taiwanese history to figure out how it all ends, but suffice to say that this is not the feel-good movie of the year.

That Taiwanese history degree may come in handy in deciphering what the hell is going on from time to time. The different tribes wear similar clothing and sport identical facial tattoos, and it becomes a challenge to keep track of what tribe is being shown at any given time, and whether they are allies or foes to the Seediq. I’ll be damned if I didn’t wish Ando had brought some of those oh-so-convenient to distinguish costumes from Django. Then the film jumps ahead 35 years and all bets are off. New actors are used in every role, and the majority do not have a young counterpart to introduce them in the first place. You’re left scrambling to understand who characters are, let alone their motivations and connections to other characters.

None of these actors stand out, and none are asked to. This is a story about an entire people, not really just one man or woman. Actors appear to be are serviceable in their roles, although it is difficult to tell in a subtitled film. Lin Ching-Tai’s Mouna is the main protagonist of the story, and he does an adequate job in his one dimensional role. The story itself is easily identifiable to everyone; noble natives rebel against evil foreign invaders.  Te-Sheng does an admirable job of presenting both sides in shades of grey instead of the usual black and white terms of good vs. evil, which I found refreshing and more realistic.

Everything about the film screams gritty realistic historical accuracy, until Mouna’s father shows up to sing a round with him Return of the Jedi style halfway through the film. In the face of everything before (and even afterward) this is unexpected, unnecessary, and jarring. The poor Lucasian influences don’t end there either, as often questionable CGI is used heavily. This is the type of film that one is likely to champion as ripe with scenic beauty, if it weren’t for the low quality green screen sets mixed in for good measure. Where CGI use excels is in the film’s decapitation budget. Never before have I seen so many heads get lopped off, and yet each one was as awesome and visceral as the last.

To recap: the film is worth a spot on your Netflix Instant Queue in a month or two, nothing more. I watched the bloated 140 minute US version, and am skeptical as to whether the 270 minute international monstrosity would fare better. Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale is an ambitious effort to bring to life a defining chapter in Taiwanese history. Yes, it is clear that Te-Sheng bit off more than his budget, cast, and abilities could chew. But that does not mean that what was made was anything to laugh at, either. The decapitation stuffed third act alone warrants a watch; and at the end of the day if that is enough to get you to see a movie, you probably don’t care about the rest of my gripes. Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale is available on Blu-ray, DVD and Digital August 7th.

Geekscape Movie Reviews: REC3 – Genesis

by Allisonnnnn

Nothing should get in the way of a woman and having her perfect wedding—not crazy relatives, not poor catering or a stuttering priest and definitely not zombies.  Fortunately for Clara (Leticia Dolera), the first three potential terrors were not an issue, but when one is a fictional character in a Paco Plaza film, zombies are the order of the day.

Tackling [REC]3: Genesis without his usual co-director, Jaume Balaquero, Plaza broke away from the expectations of the franchise and angled off to explore a different direction: a comedy of the undead.  Stifle your gasps of horror—the movie is still quite enjoyable, though if you are looking for the usual intensity and seriousness of the first two [REC] movies, you’re going to have to search elsewhere.

We are introduced to our lovely couple, Clara and Koldo (Diego Martin), just before they tie the proverbial knot.  The rest of the cast is cleverly introduced as two cameramen, the official wedding photographer Atun (Borja Glez. Santaolalla) and the potentially annoying cousin, Adrian (Alex Monner), explore and interview the wedding guests.

What is lovely about the humor and found-footage style during this decently lengthy section is that we are able to view the relationships between the characters, to see the humanity and experience that loss later on as each character turns into a wandering, teeth-chattering corpse.

However, what should become an emotionally intense tragedy as the wedding party descends into the world of brain-consumption, turns into a building farce as more and more absurd situations come into play.  Koldo dons armor and runs through the reception hall waving his sword while Clara’s weapon of choice is a blood-spattering chainsaw and the zombie battles border on ridiculous.

I am not saying, mind you, that this is a bad movie—it’s very much not.  It’s highly entertaining, beautifully shot, and quite hysterical at times.  But putting the label of the dramatic and intense [REC] franchise on this film was an error, and will certainly cause disappointment in more than a few fans as they settle into their comfy couches to witness an entirely new episode of [REC] that is not at all what they expected.

[REC]3: Genesis will be available on Video On Demand on August 2 and in theaters starting September 7.  In the meantime, check out the awesome promotional posters below.

Geekscape Movie Reviews: Apartment 143

by Allisonnnnn

Continuing on the popular found-footage trend that has haunted us to varying degrees of intensity since The Blair Witch Project, Nostromo Pictures’ Apartment 143 delves into the oft-visited world of parapsychology in apartment number—you guessed it—143.

Dr. Helzer (Michael O’Keefe) has descended upon the home of the White family with gadgets ablazing in an attempt to locate, document, define, and hopefully banish what they hope to be an actual paranormal event.  His team consists of the beautifully accented, technically-oriented Ellen (Fiona Glascott) and the likely high school drop-out and camera man, Rick (Paul Ortega).

The White family’s case is an odd one, as it has the elements of several different types of paranormal sources.  Bizarre sounds, the apartment shaking, objects moving around the house, apparitions, possessions, hovering, and the likelihood of a traveling spectre, as the White family moved once these events began plaguing them.

What makes this film fascinating is not the haunting itself, but the chase the movie puts you on as you attempt to figure out its source.  First, there’s the daughter, Caitlin (Gia Mantenga), who clearly has some sort of trauma-based psychological issue.  Then there’s the four year old son, Benny (Damian Roman), who by virtue of being a small child in a horror film immediately rises to the top of my list of suspects.  The father, Alan (Kai Lennox), does not seem to be without his own demons—one in the form of his recently and violently deceased wife—yet another possibility.

Of course, then one has to wonder if they had the bad luck of escaping one haunted residence into a new residence that was haunted prior to their arrival.  At that point, really, you just have to give up on life—that’s like moving from a house located on top of an Indian burial ground to a house located on top of a pet cemetery: you’re clearly fucked and a third relocation will probably land you at a refurbished mental hospital converted (after a tragic fire that killed all of the terribly violent inmates) into a set of charmingly underpriced apartments.

The movie was mostly typical of the genre, very little that hasn’t been done in other films.  But it did have its fun moments and the explanation at the end didn’t quite satisfy my curiosity—something I love.  I kept thinking I knew the answer and realized that I only knew parts of the whole, as the film slowly trickled out information as opposed to doing it all in shoddy, expositional conversations that always feel so false.

Apartment 143 is available On-Demand through Magnet Releasing.

Geekscape Movie Reviews: “Beasts Of The Southern Wild”

by Scott Alminiana

Beasts of The Southern Wild is the film that has taken both the Sundance and Cannes film festivals by storm. It won the Grand Jury Prize as well as the Excellence in Cinematography Award at Sundance and won the Camera d’Or (Best First Film) at Cannes. After seeing this film it’s easy to see why it’s been winning these awards and why it’s the talk of the town. It is truly an original film and unlike anything I’ve seen in quite sometime. It poetic and mystifying all in one. I’ll be honest, up until a few weeks ago it was a movie I had never heard of, but then I saw the trailer for it and I was hooked. Now I’ve seen the film and I’ve been ranting about it to anyone who will listen.

It tells the tale of six-year-old Hushpuppy (newcomer Quvenzhané Wallis), who lives with her father Wink (another newcomer Dwight Henry) in The Bathtub, a bayou community that is cut off from the rest of the world by a levee. Young Hushpuppy believes that the natural world is in balance with the universe but when a hurricane devastates the world she knows she will do everything in her power to save her sickly father and their sinking home.

The film is told from the vantage-point of Hushpuppy and we experience everything from her perspective. Her world is not our world but we get to become part of it through her eyes and it’s quite a sight to be seen. Young Quvenzhané Wallis, who was only six when this was made gives an amazing performance, especially considering the fact that she had absolutely zero acting experience prior to this film. Her performance as Hushpuppy is what drives this film, she is the soul of this. Director Benh Zeitlin said that “she’s the moral backbone (in the film), even though everyone else is older. She always does the right thing, and never wavers” and that it was Quvenzhané’s “incredibly strong sense of right and wrong” that she brought to the character. A quality that wasn’t there prior to her being cast. “She is really wise beyond her years and really fearless and strong in this way. When I saw I sorta knew that was the character and that’s who she was gonna be.”

Dwight Henry is equally incredible in his role as Wink, Hushpuppy’s tough yet loving father. Mr. Henry as it turns out, runs a bakery in Louisiana that was across the street from where auditions were being held. He met the casting agents when they asked if they could pass out flyers in his bakery and they asked him if he wanted to audition. So, he sent in an audition tape and everyone was taken by him, but when they tried to reach him they found it nearly impossible to find him. As it turns out, this was due to the fact that they were trying to reach him in the afternoon, but being a baker he worked midnight to noon and was asleep when they were trying to get a hold of him. Once he was cast in the role, Zeitlin would discuss the character with Henry from 2am -5am as he baked. They would discuss his character and shape Wink into a character that more closely embodied Henry’s fearlessness and perseverance in the face of difficult circumstances. These are traits that really come out when you watch the film. Wink is a harsh character and his relationship with Hushpuppy is at times difficult to watch but as the film progresses you realize that there is a reasoning for the way he acts towards his daughter. He does what he must to teach his daughter how fend for herself and how to survive in a world without her father.

Wink and Hushpuppy in their boat made of junk

Enough credit can’t be given to Benh Zeitlin, director and co-writer on the film. Here he has crafted a truly remarkable film that makes you connect with these characters and their strength and fierceness despite the harshness of the world around them. He gets phenomenal performances out of the cast. He has also crafted a place that is so incredibly new yet hauntingly familiar at the same time. This is a director’s movie for sure and he can hear his voice coming through in the form of Hushpuppy throughout.  He takes us on a journey in the film and has fashioned something strange and wonderful. It’s almost as if you’re reading a poem when you see this. That sentiment may sound incredibly hokie and sure it sort of is, but that’s honestly the way I felt as I watched this piece of art.

This is a film that’s as far from the Hollywood standard as you can get. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone who sees it, but it is something that I strong urge everyone to see and experience it for yourself. In a summer that’s littered with the likes of Battleship and Rock of Ages, I think you owe it to yourselves to see a movie that has something original to say and isn’t just thrown together to make a quick buck. See this movie, I can’t urge you enough.

Beasts of The Southern Wild opens in limited release on June 27.

Score: 4.5/5

 

 


Geekscape Movie Reviews: ‘Prometheus’ (A Different Opinion)

by Scott Alminiana

*Warning: This review contains spoilers to the movie*

Prometheus has landed and it’s landed with a thud. Ridley Scott’s return to sci-fi was something I was doing celebratory back-flips over (not really, I’d hurt myself if I’d have actually tried a back-flip) and this was  a movie I have been looking forward to for quite sometime. As far as I’m concerned this movie is a steaming pile of Bantha fodder.

I’m not going to give a detailed synopsis of the movie due to the fact that anyone who has seen the trailers has pretty much seen the movie already. Basically the store breaks down as such, scientists (and I use that term very loosely) discover “an invitation” from the stars and go looking for the answer to the creation of man. They land on a mysterious planet and bad things happen, the end. For a detailed synopsis of the movie as well as different opinion on it check out Matt Landsman’s review.

People have been referring to this as a “thinking man’s movie” and that’s a statement I completely disagree with. Trust me, I’ve thought about this movie a lot over the last few days and despite the basic premise the rest of the movie is not thought out at all. The basic premise of ‘man looking for his maker’ is a cool idea but the presentation fails in almost every way possible.

Screen-writers Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof ask two big questions in the movie, “who created us” and “why do our creators hate us.” Yet they only answer the first question with a very simple “because they could.” Dammit Lindelof, that’s about as in-depth and thought-provoking of an answer as the one you gave for “what is the island.” There is absolutely zero character development in this movie and it says something about a movie when the most interesting and thought out character is an emotionless android.

Michael Fastbender’s David, who is the aforementioned android, easily steals this movie and aside from the visuals, is the best part of it. But what about the other characters? Well, the Prometheus is said to have a crew of seventeen and yet out of those we only (sorta) get to know five of them, not that we really get to know any of these people. These are supposed to be scientists and yet none of them, save for Noomi Rapace’s character Elizabeth Shaw, seems to care about the most important discovery in human history. Hell, one of the characters (I’m not even sure if he even has a name) is said to be a geologist and it seems like he could give two shits about the geology of this mysterious planet he’s on. If this is a “thinking man’s movie” shouldn’t I want to know what the characters think about the most important discovery in the history of man and shouldn’t I care about them in some way? Yet, when people start dying horrifically I could not care less nor could I probably tell you who they even were. They might as well have been red shirts from Star Trek.

The rest of the cast is made up of the likes of Charlize Theron, who plays Meredith Vickers, representative for the  Weyland Corp and an uptight bitch. That’s pretty much the extent of her role here. Logan Marshall-Green plays Shaw’s boyfriend/fellow scientist Charlie Holloway, we only know they are an item because they have sex about half-way through the movie (see, told you there’d be spoilers). His character doesn’t do much other than pout and get drunk when they get to the planet and then bang Shaw, I don’t think he actually performs any science in the entire movie (aside from the science of sex that is). Then there’s Guy Pearce as Peter Weyland, who is caked in prosthetics and bad make up. Why they cast him in this I’m not really sure, they could have just cast an actual old man and we would have ended up with the same results minus the bad make up. These are all cliched characters that we’ve seen plenty of times in other movies.

Director Ridley Scott knows how to make a beautiful looking movie and that goes for this one as well, despite it merely being window dressing this time around. Sure, the movie has some cool action sequences as well as some gruesome parts, like a scene in which Shaw must perform surgery on herself. That scene is the closest this movie gets to the gruesome horror of original Alien. Scott previously stated that this movie isn’t so much a prequel as it is more of a movie that contains the DNA of the original, which is a very true statement in every way.  Do we see xenomorphs in Prometheus? Well sorta. We do get to see an early form of the xenomorphs and that is pretty cool. Truth be told, I’m okay with this not being a direct prequel to Alien- if it had been I would have been even more disgusted with the finished results than I currently am.

If Ridley Scott and company wanted to truly make this a “thinking man’s movie” then they should have created a better movie with characters that actually think in the first place. Will this movie get a sequel? Probably, but will it be any good? Probably not. If you want to see a movie filled with cardboard characters and lack of a plot but that looks amazing then this is the movie for you. If you want to see a good movie, go re-watch Alien and Aliens.

Score: 2/5

 

Geekscape Movie Reviews: “Moonrise Kingdom”

by Scott Alminiana

Hipster director Wes Anderson is back with “Moonrise Kingdom,” his follow up to 2009’s “The Fantastic Mr. Fox.” Anderson co-wrote the story with Roman Coppola (they previously wrote “The Darjeeling Limited), in which two 12-year-olds fall in love in 1965 and run away together into the wilderness as authorities search for them.

Newcomers  Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward play the roles of star-crossed 12-year-olds, Sam Shakusky and Suzy Bishop, and they give terrific performances. These aren’t regular kids, these are kids seen through a Wes Anderson filter.

Sam is an orphaned kid, disliked by both his foster brothers and his fellow kaki scouts. Suzy is a misunderstood girl, who lives in a lighthouse with her three younger brothers and parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand). The two meet and begin writing each other, soon hatching a plan to run away together into the great unknown. Scout Master Ward (a wonderful Edward Norton) soon realizes that Sam has “flown the coup,” enlists the help of police captain Sharp (an out of character Bruce Willis, but great none the less) and forms a search party made up of the kids from the scout troop, who are out for blood. Along the way, we are treated to performances from Tilda Swinton as Social Services (no really, that’s her name in this), Jason Schwartzmen as Ben, a scheming con-artist of a camp counselor, and Harvey Keitel as Commander Pierce.

I can’t give enough credit to Wed Anderson for his work here. If you’re not a fan of his, this isn’t going to win you over. If you are a fan of his work however, like me, you will find this endearing and charming without ever being cutesy or mushy. From the opening shot to the closing credits, there is always something wildly entertaining going on in each frame, be it the subtle look on a character’s face, or the wonderful narration of Bob Balaban. There are a few parts where the pacing does drag a tad but overall the film works wonders.

If you want to a see a film that is hilariously heartfelt, where you may find yourself smiling frequently throughout, then this film is for you. If that doesn’t sound like your type of movie, go see “Battleship” instead. The choice is yours, but choose wisely.

Score: 4/5

 

Geekscape Movie Reviews: “Men In Black 3”

by Scott Alminiana

Has it really been 15 years since Will Smith’s Agent J first donned the last suit he’d ever wear?! The first “Men In Black” was released back in 1997 and worked wonders, but then it was followed up with 2002’s lackluster “Men In Black 2”.

Following  the letdown that was “MIB2”, the franchise was wisely put on hold and the suits were put away in mothballs. Now that we’ve all had a chance to wash the bad taste out of our mouths the Men In Black are back for another adventure.

This time around we find Agent J (Will Smith), still working with his surely partner Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones), as they continue to keep the world safe from the scum of the universe. When an enemy from K’s past, Boris the Animal (Jemain Clement), escapes custody and travels back in time, altering the future, it’s up to Agent J to save the day. The new head of the MIB, Agent O (Emma Thompson) orders Agent J to travel back in time and “put right what once went wrong” and just like that we are off to 1969. Once he’s safe but not sound back in good old 1969, we are introduced to a scene-stealing Josh Brolin as the young version of Agent K and the two agents are off on an adventure that sees the likes of Andy Warhol, the  “Amazin’ Mets” and Apollo 11.

Director Barry Sonnenfeld has managed to make a movie that not only gets the series back on track, makes us remember what made the first film so enjoyable, and simultaneously making us forget how lame the second film was. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones don’t miss a beat in their roles but the real star of this movie is Josh Brolin. He does a fantastic impression of Tommy Lee Jones and manages to bring new life to what has been a fairly boring and humorless character. Brolin and Will Smith have good chemistry together and their scenes together make for some good laughs.

“Men In Black 3” proves that there’s still life in the franchise. Sure, the movie may have cost $215 million dollars to make and yes, it did get delayed quite a few times, but as it turns out a little extra time to fine tune the script wasn’t such a bad thing.

Is this the best movie you’ll see this summer at the movies? Doubtful, but if you’re looking to sit back, relax, and have a good time at the movies then this flick will do the job.

Score: 3.5/5

"See this little blue light, it'll make you forget Men In Black 2"

 

 

 

Geekscape Movie Reviews: Intruders

by Allisonnnnn

I have a thing for fairy tales, those simplisitic little stories that offer something different up each time I read them. I also have a thing for horror movies, where things don’t always end up happily ever after.

Few movies can effectively combine both the scare and feel of horror and the simplistic, constantly changing perception of fairy tales, but Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (28 Weeks Later) mangages to blend together those traits in his latest film, Intruders, with the creation of the monster, Hollow Face.

Hollow Face is a creature without a face that roams the streets at night looking for a child’s face to steal so he can be loved– for who could love a beast without a face?

Intruders is the tale of two children who are both stalked by this monster in his attempt to possess a face. We are fist introduced to Hollow Face in a nightmare, when he attacks Juan (Izan Corchero) and his mother (Pilar Lopez de Ayala) in their apartment in Spain. Just when we think things are going to reach a climax, Juan wakes, screaming for his mother.

But Hollow Face isn’t simply consigned to the dream world. Twelve-year-old Mia (Ella Purnel) and her father (Clive Owen) become physically endangered when the pre-teen begins to near-compulsively attempt to write the ending of a scary story she found hidden in the hollow of a tree. By reading this story and then attempting to finish it herself, she wakes Hollow Face and allows him access to her home, where he hides in her closet waiting for the right time to strike.

As she and her father attempt to do battle with the physical threat of Hollow Face, Mia’s mother (Carice van Houten) is skeptical of the danger and forces Mia away from the only person who not only believes her stories of Hollow Face, but will try to protect her from the creature.

While this battle goes on, Juan’s mother attempts to deal with what she seems to think is a possession and, as Juan’s nightmares begin to cross over into the real world, alternatively seeks out religious comfort and shuns it– which does little to address the danger Juan is in.

The story was fascinating, the overlapping tales of the two tormented children and how their respective parents attempted to deal with their offspring’s fears. The use of dark shadows in corners and Mia’s haunted closet triggered childhood memories of huddling under my blankets after reading a particularly scary story, fearfully eyeing my closet.

However, even with the characters in the story that most all of us can identify with– as either terrified children or parents dealing with that horror, and even with the fascinating story, parts of the movie’s internal logic began to fall apart at the end, leaving questions not just unanswered but unable to be answered within the system the movie put forth.

If you are one of those people that leaves theaters and rigorously complains that the movie did not make sense, that factors x, y, and z did not add up on a logical level, and you place the majority of the movie’s value on its logical consistency, this may not be the movie for you.

However, if you are able to suspend disbelief, as we are asked to do so often when dealing with fairy tales and fantasy stories, if you do not need a constant form of logical support to enjoy something as a piece of film, I highly suggest taking the time to go down to your local theater to view the tale of Hollow Face.

To read an interview with director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo on the thoughts behind this film, please click here.

Intruders releases in theaters on March 30th, 2012.

Geekscape Movie Reviews: Wanderlust

by MCDave

Paul Rudd’s once up and down career has blossomed into a solid body of work. Beginning his upswing in 2004 with the instant classic Anchorman, Rudd then followed suit with another excellent supporting role in the hysterical comedy The 40 Year Old Virgin. After a few more successful secondary stints, his career finally took off when he starred in the 2009 smash hit Role Models. Just a mere three years later and Rudd finds himself once again teaming up with his Role Models director David Wain. But Wain and Rudd are no strangers to one another. The friends and colleagues have worked together on every film that Wain has directed, including their most recent collaboration, Wanderlust.

Wanderlust follows George (played by Rudd) and Linda (played by Aniston), a young married couple living in New York City and already struggling to make ends meet. But when George unexpectedly loses his job and Linda’s attempt at a documentary gets turned down by HBO, the duo can no longer afford their mortgage. While trekking to Atlanta to shack up with George’s more successful and far more intolerable older brother Rick, the husband and wife discover Elysium. Elysium is a commune-like property filled with dozens of free-spirited members living under the direction of a divine leader named Seth. Although the notion seems far fetched, could Elysium be just the lifestyle that this couple needs?

Wanderlust is an overly simplistic and re-hatched attempt at R-rated humor. The film’s story becomes lost behind the overly animated characters that exist on screen. As Wanderlust serves up its obvious plot twists, it becomes apparent how brutally shallow the movie really is. Rarely does a film cause its audience to give up on its leading characters so quickly. Pinpointing the problems in David Wain’s Wanderlust becomes a daunting task, mostly because there’s so much blame to go around.

In addition to its aimless plot, Wanderlust finds little solace in the performance given by its leading actress Jennifer Aniston. Although her co-star Paul Rudd is far from spectacular himself, Aniston is simply woeful throughout the film. With remarkable ease, the actress elevates her already unlikable character to a whole new level. But despite its questionable stars, Wanderlust does offer a wide variety of outlandishly comical side characters. With the aid of a few minor roles, there are a handful of laugh out loud moments which manage to keep the film mildly entertaining.

Unfortunately for fans of well written comedic genius, “shock comedy” has become the latest craze. Everything from the bathroom scene in Hall Pass to Maya Rudolph defecating on the street in Bridesmaids, the bigger the shock the better. Wanderlust rides this bandwagon and musters up plenty of full frontal nudity (both male and female). But don’t worry, I promise I won’t spoil the movie’s biggest shocker of all.

Wanderlust is a drifting hour and a half adventure to nowhere. Centered around over the top side characters and containing very little substance, the film becomes a somewhat purposeless experience. As is the case with any comedy, Wanderlust has the occasional highlight. However, the distant gap between these rare moments is far too difficult to withstand. Heed my advice and stay clear of Wanderlust

Stars: 1 and a half stars out of 4

Grade: C-

 

Note: When MCDave isn’t creating havoc at Geekscape, he’s critiquing films at Movie Reviews By Dave

This Geek In Netflix: Muoi, the Legend of a Portrait

by Allisonnnnn

Hrm.  Intro.  I like puppies.

In late 2007, Muoi: The Legend of a Portrait was released and, according to Wikipedia (which is always suspect to me), was the second horror film to be released in Vietnam (the first being Haunted House/Ghost Stream) and garnered the first under-16 ban rating for disturbing imagery and violence.

I’d name the actors but, much like with Vampires, no one is going to know who they are anyway.  I’d also like to declare that Asians don’t have feelings (much like Europeans), but I don’t want to be the victim of some “accident” involving chopsticks.  So… ASIANS ARE AWESOME! <( ^_^ )>

Look at how awesome he is!

Now, this part is usually where I write up a plot summary, but I think you’re going to get my notes on the beginning instead.

Open with credits while panning through forest, then monster-lady jumps down and movie begins.

Tranny!  No, not a trannny.  So confused.  Not-a-tranny runs down street and wanders into a temple.  Smoke sweeps up from her feet, she drops her lantern, something from above swings down as she screams in despair.  DESPAAAAIRRRR!

Not the possible tranny.

Okay, back to the actual article.

Yoonhee (spelling is variable depending on translator, article, or database you are accessing but, uh… *(^o^)*) is a young Korean novelist who has, through help of her long-distance friend in Vietnam, Seoyeon, developed a mild obsession with turning the Curse of Muoi (more in a minute, simmer the hell down) into a best-selling novel.  

We meet aforementioned novelist as she receives the third degree about  Seoyeon from one of her cunty friends and leaner-on boyfriend and about her upcoming trip to Vietnam to do research for her novel.  After taunting her a second time, the cunty friend gets Yoonhee to take her camera, which comes into play later.  

Not that I’m going to talk about it in this article.  But if you’re planning on watching this thing and keeping track of inanimate objects, that’s one to pay attention to.

I need a fancy Vietnamese vacation house.

Back in l’abode de Yoonhee (that’s French for the house of Mistress Yoonhee the Mighty), we get to hear the answering machine recording of Yoonhee’s editor threatening her over the needed story.  She decides to flee the country.

I lied.  (I do that a lot.  You’ll get used to it.)  She goes to Vietnam (as previously mentioned– please pay attention) to pursue research for her book.  Chae Seoyeon, the giraffe-necked wonder who Yoonhee hasn’t seen in three years, meets her at the airport, and takes her on the city’s official Muoi Tour.

Giraffe.  Neck.

I lied again– there is no official Muoi Tour.  You should probably spank me for such naughtiness.

On the unofficial Muoi Tour, Seoyeon guides Yoonhee to a wall of photographs in some… park(?).  I’ve never heard of this, but good for them for erecting a wall outside and putting framed photographs on it.  Anyhow, Yoonhee (and therefore we) learn about how Muoi was born a normal child (even though her name means “ten”), and how when Muoi became a ghost, monks had to be called in to seal her spirit into a painting to keep her contained.

Because, you know, paintings aren’t easy to destroy or anything.  No, sir.

Seoyeon also informs us that Muoi has the power to curse on the 15th night of the month when there is a full moon (I curse during certain times of the month too) and that the curse lasts for 15 days (poor girl).  

When Yoonhee questions what the curse actually does and where the witnesses are, Seoyeon says that she doesn’t know what the curse is, but all victims of the curse are certainly dead.  Suspicous conversation follows, leaving us all with the knowledge that something isn’t right with Seoyeon, but Yoonhee isn’t socially adept enough to catch it.

Awkward vacation photo.

They get a room at a hotel and, while the little creepster sleeps, Yoonhee experiences ringing doorbells and showers that turn themselves on.  (I turn myself on all the time.  But usually not, you know, while cameras are running.)

There is, of course, a second ghost reveal.  Now, this is 13 minutes in (OOOoOOOoOOooOOO) and we’ve seen the ghost twice.  Not exactly a suspense-builder, is it?

The next day, they head to l’abode du Seoyeon le creepster (the house of Seoyeon the creepster) and have a typical Bluebeard set-up.  You know, the moment when some creeptastic creeper says “Don’t go into that part of the castle/house/shack, it’s where I do perfectly innocent things, but it’s my special place”?  And then they smile like they’re already planning about anally raping you with a loaf of banana bread next time you sleep?  That thing.

She has memorized the recipe for banana bread.

The legend of Muoi and her curse is revealed later that day on a romantic boatride that ends at Muoi’s old cottage.  Before Muoi became a ghost, the tale goes, she was a humble peasant girl who fell in love with an artist who tragically had to leave her after starting her portrait because he was engaged. Inconveinent, that.

What was more inconveinent was that this fiancee was psychotic and decided to have Muoi’s legs broken immediately before throwing a jar full of acid onto her face.  Horribly scarred from this incident (and not just psychologically), Muoi decided that she could not chase after her love with her newly gained physical deformity and instead hung herself in order to turn herself into a ghost and get revenge. (AKA: bitches be crazy.)

Probably not the best day of her life.

Seoyeon wanders outside and lets Yoonhee explore the property alone.  As alone as she could be, given that she’s being fucking haunted by a crazy ghostbitch.

The film degrades (as much as this film could degrade– it’s pretty much a flatline the entire way through) to where you’d expect: Yoonhee continues to get spooked by spooky things while pursuing her research and Seoyeon continues to be a creeper.  Eventually there’s the obvious reveal and the obvious end– which I felt was amateurly done.

Nothing to do with any of the surrounding text.  Carry on.

This movie is, while not exactly slow, terribly disjointed.  I’m not sure if the fault lies with the screen-writer, the editor, or the translator (or all three), as the subtitling is pretty damn bad and leads one (me) to believe that with as many spelling and grammatical errors as I caught upon first reading, the content of the translation itself may be dodgy.

Overall, was this movie worth watching?  Seoyeon was hot in that creepy, Wednesday Adams sorta way that I really appreciate… but did it really make up for the lukewarmness of this movie?  Does my creation of “lukewarmness” offend anyone?  These are things you’ll have to answer for yourself, though I’m not really going to encourage anyone to queue this corpse up on Netflix.

The Dark Knight Reviewed

by Jonathan

I’m not going to hide it, but ever since I saw Adam West don the spandex, I’ve been a Batman fan. I’ve slugged through the good movies (Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Begins), the goofy movies (Original Batman movie) and the travesties (Batman Forever, Batman and Robin), all in the name of a love for the cape crusader. With this in mind, I eagerly as possible in a post-Phantom Menace world, I’ve awaited the release of Dark Knight, the newest movie in this linage of batman movies.

Its been 24 hours since I was let out of the movie, and all I can say is this:

The Dark Knight is amazing.

While there is no denying that the Dark Knight is an action film at its core it is really an ensemble film. Each core member of the cast, Bale, Ledger, Eckhart and Oldman in their respective roles of Bruce Wayne, The Joker, Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon are given equal screen time both together and alone. This results in the movie being as much a study in character as it is about exploding buildings. The biggest question addressed by the movie is of how these characters deal with their responsibility. Ultimately many of the characters, both major and minor, are shown to shy away form making any firm choices where they would ultimately be responsible. This is shown from the mob unleashing the Joker on the city to Dent’s reliance on his double headed coin.

The biggest part of this move that everyone will be talking about is the portrayal of The Joker by Ledger. Gone is the joke buzzers and mayhem of The Joker from his previous incarnations, and instead in its place is a calculating man who is severely left of centre. This Joker is an agent of Chaos who prefers to cut his victims instead of gassing them. The horror of this character is further strengthen by drawing from elements in the comic, The Killing Joke. Most notably is the idea of The Joker attempting to show that any man, no matter how good they are, can be destroyed by a really bad day.

Being a new take of the character, the film makers also made some interesting changes to his origin. The biggest being the refusal to give him any origin or motivation for his actions. As Alfred says in the movie, ‘Some men just want to see the world burn’, and The Joker is this man. While the rest of the cast is shown to struggle with the weight of responsibility and the choices that must be made, and lived with, The Joker is shown to be a primal force of nature. He comes in like a hurricane, causes his damage, and when he is finally dealt with, all are different for the experience.

Ledger, like Eckhart and Oldman owned their roles. I got chills watching the scenes where Ledger and Eckhart interacted with each other. Each monologue by Ledger is also a treat to watch, and the attention paid to the finer details, such as body language do nothing but build his case for an Oscar nomination this year. In general the casting for the film is strong, with perhaps the weakest point in it being the title character Batman. Bale is shown, and continues to be the best Bruce Wayne to grace the screen, but his Batman, and his raspy voice is at times distracting.

We cannot discuss this movie without addressing the one question on everyone’s mind, is the Dark Knight better then Iron Man? If you looking purely at the generation of money, then yes, Dark Knight will be the better movie. If you look at the question in terms of acting and story, then the answer becomes less clear. To compare Iron Man and the Dark Knight this way is like asking a father to pick between his two children.

And as comic fans, we are all the better for having two children then just the one.

Hancock: The Review

by Gilmore

Few redeeming qualities can be found in this film. Here’s the difficult part: I like Will Smith. Say what you will about whatever summer blockbuster he has brought us in the past few years, but there is no doubt that he is a big name, makes relatively good choices, and is a great actor. We all fell in love with him during his years as our beloved Fresh Prince, but really got to know him as his film career started. Bad Boys made him into a full fledged action star, Independence Day endeared him to audiences all over the world, Ali made him into A-List material, Men in Black entertained us all, and The Pursuit of Happyness made all of us cry. He has excited us, made us laugh, made us cry, and even scared us with I Am Legend. I think he ran out of emotions and went with “anger” and “disappointment” this time around with 2008’s Will Smith summer movie Hancock.

Hancock starts out with a chase scene that drops you right into the action. This is a superhero movie afterall, right? Let’s see this guy fight some crime. We cut to Hancock sleeping on a bus stop bench just like he is in the huge marketing campaign that you no doubt have seen if you have left the house in the last month or so. An eerie looking child wakes him up and points to some televisions and says “Hancock, bad guys”.

Here’s where the film started to lose me: Hancock (Will Smith) takes off (leaving broken pieces pavement in his leave, as he does throughout the film) and destroys what looks like millions of dollars worth of property on the way to stop the criminals on the run. “Move, Bitch” starts playing. That’s right. “Move, Bitch” (“MOVE, BITCH! Get out the way! Get out the way!…”). The tastelessly placed song that ruined the first trailer of this film for me was playing. Songs with such pervasive lyrics tend to take over a scene; and unless you’re intending for the song to be the primary focus and for your audience to take a break from your film making in order to enjoy the song being sung, then that’s a fine choice. If a film maker thinks “it’s kind of funny” to have a song that aligns with what is going on, then that music supervisor should pretty much be fired. That level of cheese is unforgivable in modern superhero movies. Especially in a summer where films like Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Hulk are taking the stories, and the characters seriously.

Remember in the Iron Man trailer when Tony Stark comes out in his Iron Man suit and destroys everything to the song Iron Man? I was ringing my own hands in fear that this song, adding this level of cheese, would destroy that part of that film. Thankfully, Favreau and co. were smart enough to let the film speak for itself (despite its one-power chord score). Hancock not only made this mistake, but kept making it throughout the film. The song “Move, Bitch” is credited twice in the film at the end credits

Needless to say, the rest of the music in the film was atrocious. From ill-chosen hip-hop hits to John Williams Superman clones, this film’s music was one of its biggest downfalls. Except, of course, for one of the most important parts – the script

There is very little, if any, plot in this film. Sure, there is character development, but let’s not mistake that for a story. The film pulls you in three different directions and places you in scenes instead of bringing you to them. We are supposed to have started the film with some kind of caring about this character, when he has not endeared himself to us from the very beginning. This is the film’s biggest mistake. It drops the characters and the story on you as if it were a comic book movie (and this also isn’t ok for comic book movies to do, by the way).

We’re supposed to care about Will Smith’s character and the fact that he’s going through something, because he is, after all, the title character. We are not given a reason, other than the film is being told from his perspective.

After his incarceration, the (100% predictable) revelation of Charlize Theron’s character’s powers, and the introduction of (a very poor excuse for) a villain, we are left with a film absolutely devoid of what would have made it good. There is no tension, there is no sense of danger for any of the characters, and there is no sense of purpose. Why do we care if Hancock does well with the public? So we can have a good viewing experience?

We know Charlize Theron’s character is going to be a bad guy, so we wait for that once the hints are dropped. We get there in the film, and they fight for seemingly no reason other than anger, and then there are no real consequences or conflict beyond Hancock’s origin?

A one-handed bald guy with a gun? Really? That’s the end villain/conflict for this film? Sure he has to save the life of his superhero companion, but if she was so worried about his well being, why didn’t she just leave town so he could get better sooner?

The plot holes, lack of emotional involvement on the audience’s part, the music, and the horrible lines (“Are you a crackpot?!” was actually a punchline in this film) make Hancock the most disappointing experience of this summer.

Here’s the worst part: I wasn’t really expecting very much, if anything, at all. This film was not just bad, it was Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer bad. It was bad because it gives more ammo to those who “don’t want to see another superhero movie as long as they live”. It was bad because it was a relatively sound premise with a great cast and a hell of a lot of money behind it that could have been great if it just had some time, care, and creative effort put into it beyond the “realistic” breaking of the streets during take-offs and landings.

The concept introduced in Hancock of superpowered beings that have been around for thousands of years being dwindled down to only two and whose weakness is being around the one they were meant to love is great. That sentence sounds like there would be a great story to tell there and the saddest part is that there is. The disappointing part is that Will Smith’s Hancock didn’t tell it.

You should skip this movie and rent it if you really need to. Just don’t support movies like this one that take the superhero movie genre into the quality-abyss that would have been ok a few years ago. If Hancock was made a few years ago, then it would have been taken as ok; but with Iron Man, Hulk, and the Batman franchises breathing quality back into the Superhero genre Hancock really should have stepped it up. Don’t support films doing that, because in this downward spiral towards special effects and CGI extravaganzas over good quality films, a good story is hard to come by; and we’re definitely getting there with superhero movies, but I don’t want the bad ones to keep being made and neither do you. Your dollar is your vote in how the coming summers will treat us. Vote wisely. Rent this or borrow it from a friend.

 

 

Wanted: The Geekscape Review

by Brent Moore

WARNING! SPOILERS ABOUND! <— that should be enough…

There are two ways to handle an adaptation, one of which is right and one of which is wrong. The right way to adapt a story to film is to stay true to the theme and story of the original work. You can tweak the details all you want. Take a few characters out, add a few new ones, change locations, whatever. The fanboys will bitch but as long as you stay true to what the original material is about you will have done your job, and it’s just a fact of life that that stuff needs to happen sometimes to make a book or comic work on film.

The wrong way to adapt something is to completely neglect what the original is about or was trying to say but then try to cover your ass by staying true to some of the details. Unfortunately, this is the route that Wanted went. It’s got dialog and scenes lifted directly from the comic all over the place to remind you that, yes, this is the Wanted you know and love. However, they could not have missed the mark further as far as staying true to the message of the original.

Wanted, as written by Mark Millar, was a comic about breaking out of your mundane, meaningless existence and just giving into your id fully. It was unapologetic, it was brutal, it was amoral, it was nihilistic. It was a book that you want to be repulsed by but somewhere deep inside there was a primal part of you that was cheering with joy.

The movie attempts to take a book about bad guys being bad just because they can, and makes it a movie about good guys being bad because they are trying to make the world a better place. It tries to spread the message of giving into your id and giving a big “fuck you” to the world, but at the same time is apologetic about it. Like a kid throwing a temper tantrum until he accidentally breaks something, then cleaning up the mess while uttering a non-stop stream of “I’m sorry’s”.

The movie also decides to change up the story a bit. The comic revolved around a secret society of super villains that had killed off all of the super heroes and now control the world. The movie is about a secret society of assassins that was started by a group of weavers who get their assassination orders from a secret code imbedded in the thread of cloth woven by the Loom of Fate. I’m not making that up and it is exactly as stupid as it sounds.

At least they kept with the main thread of Wesley Gibson, as played by James McAvoy, being a completely normal, boring, insiginficant person before learning that his father was a bad ass killer and now he has to follow in his father’s footsteps. Kind of. The father is a different person than he is in the comic, and really the whole dynamic is thrown off because of it. You know what, they really didn’t get any aspect of the comic right.

So we’ve got a movie that is a horrible adaptation with an absolutely retarded plot. Case closed, right? Not quite. Despite its many failings, Wanted is one hell of a fun ride.

Director Timur Bekmambetov gained fame by directing the absolutely bat shit crazy Russian flicks Nightwatch and Daywatch, and all the strengths and weaknesses he showed there are present in Wanted. Bekmambetov is all about big ideas and big set pieces. He is a visual artist that wants to show you things you haven’t seen before, and they can be thrilling. Wanted is a series of set pieces strewn together with the weakest of threads. Bekmambetov hasn’t learned to tell a story yet, and I’m not sure he wants to. He wants to show you some cool shit and the story is just the excuse to do that.

If he could manage to be more consistent, Bekmambetov (man that is not a fun name to type) could really be a powerhouse director. As it stands, Wanted is wildly inconsistent in every way. There are moments of visual extravagance and humor but they happen too seldom to ever feel natural. There are times when they go all out with the in your face nihilism from the comic and then moments when they back step and try to be moralistic or dramatic. One scene happens and then the next scene happens and they rarely feel connected. The movie has more montages than a Rocky flick. It’s kind of a mess.

James McAvoy does a decent job in his first big headlining role but the real stars of the show are Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman. I’m not the biggest Jolie fan but she really comes off as effortlessly cool here. She’s also charming and manages to be sexy despite her increasing resemblance to Christian Bale in The Machinist. Morgan Freeman is always basically Morgan Freeman, but this was a Morgan Freeman that said “Kill this mothafucka” and could bend bullets and that’s just fun.

So at the end of the day we have a neutered and bastardized version of the comic, a ridiculous plot with more than a few nods to Fight Club and The Matrix, and inconsistent messy filmmaking. But none of that really matters, just turn off your brain and let yourself enjoy watching James McAvoy attack a textile factory with explosive rats. It’s really kind of cool.

Otis

by Eric Diaz

Last year, I caught an episode of Dateline NBC about this whackjob named John Jamelske, a crazy serial rapist who would kidnap young women and then take them to his Silence of the Lambs style basement/dungeon. He would force them to play act with him in a series of videos, sometimes pretending to be in a school classroom, or maybe doing aerobics together, or even singing karaoke. Oh, and this was always followed by a daily ritual of rape… right after the girls read their Bible passages. Then, after a certain amount of months had passed, some times even years, he would just let them go. I’m not sure if letting the girls live and walk free meant Mr. Jamelske was slightly less evil or slightly more stupid, because in doing so his ass was eventually caught and he now rots in jail. It was a truly, truly sick and twisted story, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t see the potential for a movie in this bizarre series of events. I mean, it’s almost too absurd to be real. Well, it seems someone else saw the potential as well, because this past weekend I managed to see a film that was clearly inspired by this story, a great satirical horror flick by the name of Otis.

The movie begins with our title character, Otis Broth (Bostin Christopher), an overweight, slovenly and socially maladjusted pizza delivery guy, who of course also happens to be a serial killer. He kidnaps young women, and just like the real life John Jamelske, takes them to his own private dungeon underneath the house. Here he keeps them chained, and forces them to enact his twisted little fantasies, which include making movies about cheerleading, being the popular girl in high school, and eventually going to the Prom with him and “going all the way.” This fulfills Otis’ idea of the ideal high school life he never had, but that was had by his older brother Morton (Kevin Pollack), now nothing but an abusive and bitter washed up ex-jock, who has chosen to unleash his life’s frustrations on brother Otis.

After each girl fulfills her purpose for Otis, he then of course disposes of them, and they end up in various dumpsters around town. After going through several local girls, and causing a media frenzy, he targets young Riley Lawson (Ashley Johnson) after delivering a pizza to her family’s home. Riley has a bratty but smart younger brother named Reed (Jared Kusnitz) who seems to have his own creepy fixation with his sister, taking videos of her in various private moments and posting them on Youtube. Their parents are portrayed by the great Illeana Douglas from To Die For and Ghost World, and Daniel Stern from the City Slickers and Home Alone movies. Both parents nail their roles and are given some classic moments. Together with younger sibling Reed, they form a perfectly dysfunctional family unit.

After Riley is kidnapped, the authorities send Agent Hotchkiss to help track her down, played in perfect douche bag glory by Jere Burns, in what seems like a spoof of every smug, gum chewing cop ever played by David Caruso. And I’d be remiss not to mention the cameo role from Tracy Scoggins as the overly botoxed and insensitive anchorwoman on a FOX news style sensationalist network. The plot takes several hilarious twists and turns, and by the end you realize that this isn’t merely just a satire of the overdone and played out torture porn movies like Saw and Hostel and the like. It also calls us out on our own national obsession with tragedy in the news, which has become some kind of weird, invasive voyeurism into the pain of the grief stricken. There are even some under the radar references to our policy in Iraq, but it’s subtle and never hits you over the head. In fact, I would have missed it entirely if director Tony Krantz hadn’t brought it up in the Q&A after the movie was screened, but on further reflection it is so plain to see that I’m not sure how I missed it the first time.

Otis is going straight to DVD, although this movie really deserves a theatrical release in my opinion. I suppose that satire with this sort of subject matter might be a hard sell to the Joe and Jane Six Packs who frequent the American multiplex. Still, considering this movie had a very low budget, it’s shot very well and the acting and writing are spot on. There are several laugh out loud moments, yet there are also several scenes that work effectively as a straight up horror movie. It’s no small achievment to combine all of these approaches, but Krantz does a great job here. Otis comes out on DVD on June 10th, so be sure to check it out and not pass over it like you do so many other straight to video movies, where you’re assuming it’s just average crap. Otis is one that actually delivers.

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanemo Bay

by Saintmort

Not more than a year ago I worked at a small mom and pop video store. Being that we were small and not corporate we really had no customers. However, despite our lack of visitors, we always worked in pairs of two. I assume that this was to keep us from stealing but it actually lead to working as a team. Still, when we weren’t slightly ripping off mom and pop (go netflix!) we’d discuss films (yes working at a video store is actually surprisingly a lot like the movie Clerks).

One day I was defending the right of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle with the biggest movie snob at the store. He referred to the film as “just another stoner comedy that is a little more than mediocre”. I began to discuss with him how the movie is clearly a satire on the way racism still exists in our every day society. This is when Kevin the Movie snob told me I was “reading into the movie way too much”.

Four years later here comes the long awaited sequel Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay and if the first one didn’t make you see the satire, this time they make it too obvious. The question I’ve heard the most is “Do you need to see the first one to like this?” and the answer is “yes, yes you do”.

The film begins right where the last one ended. Harold and Kumar are packing and getting prepared for their trip to Amsterdam so that Harold can see his new girlfriend Maria. They get to the airport and Kumar runs into his long lost love and her fiancé. As soon as they arrive at the airport the true message behind this movie begins (take that shit, Kevin, you snobby  ass fuck). Before the plane takes off Kumar is viewed as a Taliban member in the eyes of an older woman. At this point she keeps her fear quiet but once Kumar’s homemade bong is mistaken for a chemical bomb the movie really begins.

If you haven’t seen the original movie, you should stop reading this review and go rent, buy, get a job at a video store or steal it. If you have seen it and you enjoyed it I’m sure you know that the movie was designed to be very random and strange. I was worried that this sequel was going to be literally them trying to escape from Guantanamo Bay. And while Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor made for an entertaining 90 minutes on the jailbreak plot; John Cho and Kal Penn aren’t Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder. Thankfully they’re in Guantanamo Bay for all of five minutes and then they are off trying to clear their names while a crazy Government agent (played by Rob Cordry) is trying to make them an example of America’s war on Terrorism.

Once again Neil Patrick Harris returns and once again he steals the movie. In the four years between the original and this sequel Harris came out of the closet. This makes his character all the more entertaining (with all the snorting coke off of stripper’s nipples and fucking random hookers) because it’s even more obvious that he’s not playing himself as much as a parody of every child star gone wrong (a Corey milkshake if you will).

So is the movie any good? That’s a tough question to answer. It’s funny. It’s got an interesting underlying message. You will be entertained. But in the end you just won’t feel fulfilled. It seems like the last five minutes could have gone just a little longer to bring more of a closure. Does this mean I want another Harold and Kumar movie? I’m not sure. My instinct is to say no. However, Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Scholossberg have both created such likeable characters (with the help of Kal Penn and John Cho’s charisma and chemistry) that you do want to see more of them.

Are Harold and Kumar America’s new Wayne and Garth, Bill and Ted or Jay and Silent Bob (you forgot Beavis and Butthead –Ed.)? No, they are not. Both of these characters, while being stoners, are very intelligent people who have good hearts and basically just want to be treated as equals. The movie is constantly pointing out American’s racism and even has a political agenda, which is never pushed to its full potentional.

The problem is that the film is always quickly closing the door on its own satire in lieu of gross out jokes and potty humor. This is the first film I’ve ever thought to myself “What exactly does a film need to do to get an NC-17?” Within the first 20 minutes you see Kumar climax on his own face, see a very tiny penis hidden in a rainforest of pubic hair and more Vagina then a skinamax late night soft-core porno. Don’t get me wrong. It’s all funny and entertaining. But at the same time this takes away from the interesting message the film tries to send.

Rambo’s Rugrat

by HongConnerChe

It’s safe to say that I am a man full of cynicism. I’ve done many horrible things, and it’s been pretty fun. However, upon viewing the new independent film Son of Rambow, my cynicism was stripped off of me as if I were reborn in holy light and hallelujah! I now love everyone! I even love the ones that I don’t really even LIKE or care to talk to! This feeling is going to fade very quickly though, so enjoy it now. The experience of watching Son of Rambow is like the scene in Ratatouille where the vampirish food critic, Anton Ego, takes a bite of the French stew and blasted back to childhood.

Here’s the setup for the uninitiated: Son of Rambow is about two 12-year-old children from opposite family backgrounds. Will Proudfoot ( Bill Milner ), whose name kind of sounds like a Hobbit’s, is from a family who is part of a religious sect called “The Brethren”. This religious sect, which has a name better suited for a band of mutant-powered terrorists, believes that all secular culture is the work of the devil. They do not watch TV, movies or listen to music, yet they live in the modern world and use electricity. They are kind of like the Amish, but without the balls to go a hundred percent Old School. The other boy, Lee Carter (Will Poulter), lives at a retirement home which his family runs. His parents are divorced, his father is a deadbeat dad, and his mother usually spends most of her time in France with her new boyfriend. His older brother, whom he idolizes, is supposed to take care of him, but treats him like a slave instead. A kid with a background like this is of course going to be the disobedient troublemaker child that nobody at school likes.

This all begins to change when Will sees a bootleg copy of Rambo: First Blood, the first movie he’s ever seen, and the two boys set out to make a sequel to the film for an amateur film competition. There is also a French kid, Didier Revol (Jules Sitruk), who in every scene he is in made me laugh like a little giggling girl because he’s just too cool. On top of all that, the kids are British and the movie is set in the 80’s, which gives it a welcome overdose of cuteness and awesomeness. This is all that I am willing to expose of the plot because the film unfolds so wonderfully and is so charming that the less said the better.

Many people might read this and dismiss this movie as overly cloy and too “Chicken Soup for the Soul” but I assure you that it is not. Director Garth Jennings conveys the story so personally and beautifully that you never once feel a toothache. The story itself feels to me like it was a less girl on girl, PG version of Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures. There are two disparate characters who form a bond over a make believe world. That make believe world is rendered in such a hyper fantasy way that it makes you want to shed off the confines of your reality and crawl into the screen. Both movies are stunning achievements in filmmaking that make you feel the full gamut of emotion, ranging from deep laughter to teary sadness. The main differences between these two films are that there is no underage gayness, and no one receives a brick to the face in Son of Rambow. Everyone is the cast is amazing in performance, from the leads Bill Milner and Will Poulter to Jessica Stevenson (from the hit British nerd show Spaced) who plays the conflicted and complex mother of Will Proudfoot.

America is insane about exposing children to violence. They think that they will all grow up to be murders and rapists if they see a movie like Commando, but those are always the movies young boys actually want to see. Every boy needs to disobey his parents and sneak into an R rated movie at some point. It should be a rite of passage. For me it was Robocop. I snuck in to see it because there was a cyborg in it! I was expecting something like an urban Star Wars, but what I got was an exploding gas station, fourth wall shattering commercials, and a mugger getting capped in the groin. Needless to say, it blew my mind, and just like the boy in this movie, I was hooked as if I had just tried crack.

Son of Rambow proves that there can be films that are enjoyable for both adults and children alike. This movie is a family film through and through, but it doesn’t make you want to slap the children around you for enjoying it because it is actually good. This is a lesson I wish Hollywood would learn. There can be quality in family films, but for every Finding Nemo there are five Sharks Tales. After the screening of the film I attended, director Garth Jennings talked about how autobiographical it was and how it was a personal film. It truly shows. If you were ever a child that played in the back yard or snuck into a movie your parents deemed inappropriate, then you should go watch Son of Rambow as soon as it is released nation wide. This movie deserves to be the next Little Miss Sunshine.

Son of Rambow opens in limited release Friday, May 2nd.

Judenhass: A Review

by scherem

Dave Sim, a Canadian comic book writer and artist is perhaps best known for his 300 issue independent comic book series, Cerebus, where with his artistic partner Gerhard, they completed the longest run on a creator owned property in history. When Cerebus completed its run in 2004, many people assumed that would be it. Sim’s legacy was firmly in place, and he could comfortably live of the royalties and earnings of his previous work. Four years later, we see that many of us who made this assumption were wrong. Sim had been busy at work on various projects, the first of which is being released this May, and is entitled Judenhass.

Inside the cover of the preview edition of this book, Sim, states that he wanted to create a low priced intelligent, easy-to-follow and compelling book that would be of interest to both the reader and non-comic reader alike. At a four dollar price tag, he has achieved what he set out to do, and has added something new to growing cannon of graphic literature.

Judenhass, a German term that directly translate to Jew Hatred, is the subject of this work. With its use of a non-traditional narrative structure, Judenhass, firmly differs itself from other books on this topic. Instead of taking the often used first person narrative style, Sim has chosen to use a collection of historical quotes from various sources and time periods on the topic of Judenhass and match them up with intricate photo-realistic drawings depicting (mainly) images from the Holocaust. By doing this, the book becomes more then just a book on the Holocaust, but instead becomes something bigger: It becomes an account of how something as senseless and tragic as the Holocaust could occur.

Sim’s central thesis, as I’ve interpreted it, is that we should not be stating ‘never again’ or ‘how could this happen?’ when in fact the reasons and signs that something like this would happen have been brewing for a long time. It is suggested by Sim that Jew hatred is not a German issue, nor is it a Middle Eastern issue, but instead the world as a whole is ultimately responsible for what occurred. And because of the world wide nature of this hatred, discussion of the event should not be limited to only Jewish writers, but instead writings and meditation of the events should be done by everyone, regardless of creed. To truly stop the problem, everyone has to make it their problem. The section of the book that discusses this thesis is freely available to be viewed here: http://www.judenhass.com/preview.html. Be warned, it is a bit dense, and if you are used to traditional superheroes it may take a couple of readings to ‘get it’.

Perhaps the most interesting piece of this work is not the actually graphic narrative itself, but the back matter of the book. The last eight pages are where Sim gives a summary of his research for the book, citing photos, quotes, and how he selected what to use. Many of the reported quotes used by proponents of this hatred were co-opted from other sources, where, for example, they change the word of one race to that of the Jewish race. This in no way excuses the original quotes and their contexts, but instead illustrates the depth one will go to spread their hatred, and serves as a reminder for us to question what we read.

Inevitably, by the topic alone, this book will be compared to Maus: A Survivors Tale. This comparison stops at the fact that they are both graphic literature and pursuing the subject any further would be a futile effort. One is a biographical tale of a survivor and his son, while the other is an attempt to explain how the situation could have even arisen, and what, if anything, we have truly learned from these events. Will Judenhass ever win any Pulitzers or other awards like Maus? Probably not. But that shouldn’t diminishes the importance of this work.

A work of this nature is rare in comics and inspires what else can be done within the confines of the comic book. Judenhass shows that comic books do not need to follow the standard three (or four) act convention. By departing from it, the result of Sim’s work is what I can best describe as graphic non-fiction, and is a truly unique reading experience. Even if you do not believe in the message of his work, you cannot deny the accomplishment.

Judenhass is schedule to ship in May and comes highly recommended.

The Forbidden Kingdom – Review

by Jonathan

 

This weekend’s kung fu family film The Forbidden Kingdom seriously opens with Jet Li, playing the mischievous Monkey King of Chinese legend, on top of a mountain above the clouds, kicking soldiers’ asses while jumping around in a giant display of wire fu. Try as they might with their weapons, they can’t touch the guy. He smacks them around with his magic staff and laughs at their failed attempts. The display is a mix of classic kung fu spectacles like Warriors of Zu Mountain and something out of a Hannah Barbera cartoon.

If what I just described sounds really cool to you, you’ll probably enjoy the film. If this sounds just whatever, you’ve got yourself a future Netflix. If you think this opening sounds retarded as hell, it’s time to theater jump before you waste any more of your time. The Forbidden Kingdom is EXACTLY what I just described for about two hours: a mix of larger than life characters performing a repetitive series of larger than life acts in pursuit of a larger than life goal… all rolled into a cinematic love letter to
the kung fu spectacle.

More than almost any recent movie I can remember, The Forbidden Kingdom comes 100% as advertised. If you’ve seen the trailers, do not expect to be surprised by anything here. With almost a drummer’s precision, the story plots the beats out in advance and hits them one after another. A part of this audience will find this kind of storytelling satisfying while the other part will find it predictable. Regardless, this is both the strength and the weakness of The Forbidden Kingdom. As much as it pays respect to the kung fu films that came before, it doesn’t work too hard at adding to the tradition.

The film centers on highschool kid Jason Triptikas, who (you guessed it) is new to his school and keeps to himself… or at least tries to, but the local bullies love pushing him around. Jason’s only real escape is his foracious love of all things kung fu, one that brings him regularly to an old pawn shop in Boston’s Chinatown neighborhood (run by an old man that is played comedically by a heavily made up Jackie Chan). This is where Jason (played by Michael Angarano who I just saw in Snow Angels and will soon be revealed to have more chest hair for a highschooler than I’ve ever had in my entire life) first comes into contact with the Monkey King’s staff (this is still a kid’s movie, by the way!). The shopkeeper (ie, his only friend) explains that the staff was left there by the shop’s original owner over 100 years ago and you pretty much know where this is headed.

Cut to a scene where the bullies are forcing Jason to betray the shopkeepers trust in order to rob the place, the shop keeper gets shot, Jason escapes with the staff, is cornered by the bullies and WHAM… is transported to old school China, population Everyone’s Kung Fu Fighting ‘cept The New Guy From Boston. The land is ruled by a big, baddy named the Jade Emporer and you’re really starting to get the idea of what Jason needs to do. Before long, Jason befriends a Drunken Master (played by Jackie Chan), a beautiful girl named Sparrow bent on revenge (and bent on being a romantic interest) and a Silent Monk (your main man Jet Li). Together they must journey a path riddled with danger to return the staff to the Monkey King who has been frozen and imprisoned by the Jade Emporer. This is the only way in which the kingdom can be freed from tyranny and Jason can be returned to the mystical land of Boston. There’s the set up and you can pretty much guess the execution.

The movie really is an exercise in plus and minuses. As many times as the film makes you go “oh, that was pretty cool” or “they totally just referenced ‘X’ kung fu movie”, The Forbidden Kingdom also leaves you saying “that was a little too simple” or “that’s really all that happens?”. As incredible as Woo-Ping Yuen’s choreography is, sometimes it gets completely undersold by the over reliance on wire effects. I am a big fan of a well choreographed fight scene. Some of those pre-wire kung fu films are the coolest displays of human athleticism in cineman this side of Buster Keaton. But I do have my limits with wire-fu and it does play a bit too cold or unrealistic when it doesn’t seem justified.

Which brings me to what you really want me to tell you about: Jack Chan and Jet Li in the same movie for the first time. It really is the absolute highlight of the film and director Rob Minkoff knows it. That first fight scene between the two of them is completely played for broke and I can only imagine the director of The Lion King, which made more money than god, finding himself with the two biggest living kung fu legends saying to himself “DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!”. And for the most part, he doesn’t. The fight scene is a lot of fun and if you’re a fan of the genre you will definitely giggle with geek delight at how cool it is to finally see these guys working together. Could I have used less wire work? Any day. But with the skill and experience that these two stars have, it really doesn’t come off as mechanical or unbelievable as it does in other parts of the film.

The only serious drawback that I experienced watching these two heavyweights in the film wasn’t ever when they were displaying their kung fu mastery… it’s when they were speaking English. I’m being serious. There are entire lines and conversations in the film where I have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what either Jackie Chan or Jet Li were saying. I can guess based on the contexts of the story but I found myself scratching my head more often than following the scene. Maybe they thought it was safe that a family audience would be comprised mostly of blabbering and mumbling children anyway and that these mini-people could easily translate the gibberish on screen but I found it to be pretty distracting.

Maybe it’s because I grew up on dubbed kung fu. I might elicit gasps in saying this… but I prefer dubbed kung fu. Actually, I prefer ANY foreign action film to be dubbed. Yeah. Yeah. You think it’s an insult to the way in which the story was intended or that many of the dubs are poorly translated. But I’ll tell you what. I’d rather spend my time watching the action on screen without distraction than having it compete with subtitles. Plus… it is funny when their mouths are still moving and nothing is coming out. Regardless, Mr. Li and Mr. Chan’s performances would have benefitted greatly from, at the very least, a little ADR to smooth the performances along.

Prom Night(2008)

by Eric Diaz

The following review may contain Spoilers! Be warned! That’s how we roll here!

“April is the cruelest month”…or so the saying goes. Well, for movie geeks, that may be truer than for anyone else. January through April is the doldrums of the film release calendar, with few exceptions. It’s pretty much the dumping ground for movies that weren’t good enough to get released in the higher profile Holiday frame of the previous year. April is the worst though, because you are just a few short weeks away from May, when all the big genre blockbusters that you’re actually looking forward to come out. But it’s possible that the month of April has hit a new low with the release of the latest in what seems like a never ending string of horror remakes: Prom Night.

Now, I’m not totally against remakes. Some of the greatest horror flicks of all time are remakes; like John Carpenter’s The Thing and David Cronenberg’s The Fly. But let’s face it; those are the exceptions to the rule. Most of the time we are stuck with uninspired garbage made for no other reason than to cash in on name recognition. And in the last few years, it’s only gotten worse.

In a way though, a movie like Prom Night is the best example of a movie that should be remade, because frankly, the original isn’t very good. In theory, you have nowhere to go but up. I can’t say I really remember the original movie all that much, but I do remember the experience: a friend and I rented the movie and watched it instead of going to our actual senior prom, and probably fantasized that the unfortunate victims in it were some of our own classmates that we didn’t like. The plot had something to do with a bunch of kids bullying some little girl till she dies accidentally, and years later her brother getting revenge by killing them all off on the night of senior prom. This was made during Jamie Lee Curtis’ post Halloween career plan of starring in shittier knock-offs of the role that made her famous (this same career tactic would later make a star out of Julia Roberts). Other than the very basic premise of kids getting knocked off at the prom, the 1980 and 2008 versions of Prom Night only share the name in common.

Prom Night 2008 is an excruciating exercise in unoriginality. A true oxymoron, this may be the first PG-13 Slasher movie ever. The original film at LEAST had a mildly engaging “who’s really the killer?” plot and, like any exploitation movie worth it’s name, it had plenty of over the top blood and gore. This new version didn’t deliver either of the two.

We are introduced to Donna (Brittany Snow, who looks a lot like a pre-coke whore Tara Reid), a high school senior who has her entire family killed by an obsessed former teacher who was previously stalking her. Unlike the horror films of yore, Prom Night 2008 removes the masked killer and replaces him with something that scares young girls today far, far more in our To Catch A Predator world: The Creepy Older Guy. Cut to three years later, our blonde and personality-less heroine and her equally pretty and vapid friends and boyfriend are getting ready to celebrate their senior prom in style. Of course, crazy stalker killer guy escapes from the loony bin just in time to ruin everyone’s night of underage drinking and sex.

The rest of the movie is essentially oodles of horrible and pointless dialogue from our teen victims. This all happens while our killer patiently waits in their hotel room for each of the kids to come back up for one stupid reason or another. He then disgraces the genre itself by disposing of them in the most boring and bloodless way possible. He even offs a housekeeper and a hotel employee for no other reason than to add to the body count. The killings in this movie were so tame they could have easily been in some Lifetime TV movie starring a side character from One Tree Hill and it would have been exactly the same.

As bad as this movie is, I won’t lie and say it wasn’t sort of fun to watch at certain points – in a Mystery Science Theater 3000 way, of course. This enjoyment was only magnified by the fact that I watched the movie in an urban theater with a gaggle of teenagers whom apparently had never seen a horror flick in their entire lives – judging by the screams that came after every clichéd scare moment that could have possibly been squeeze into this poorly written script. The audience’s clueless reactions were far more entertaining than the actual movie.

I think the fact that this movie actually managed to scare ANYONE was actually far more frightening than anything that was onscreen. Prom Night is 90 minutes that feels more like 3 hours, so do yourself a favor and skip it and wait along with the rest of us for American horror to actually get good again. It’s bound to happen eventually.