Video Hero's Hollywood Rant

100 views!

2009-12-21T18:18:00.000-08:00

I would like to thank all the people who have stopped by and viewed my blog. Although I make no money from it (try as I might) I write from my heart on whatever is in my mind at the time. Sometimes it's amusing and sometimes not. I never plan these things and my poor use of grammer is attributed to the fact I free form everything I write.

Once again my thanks. I hope to put more crap on paper in 2010.

RIP Brittany Murphy

2009-12-20T14:10:00.000-08:00

I first saw her in Clueless. She was a cute, chubby (in a hollywood sense), little pixie who lit up the screen. Then came her role in Drop Dead Gorgeous as a similar character.

But I realised I had a crush on her when I saw Drive. An under appreciated martial arts comedy that snuck in on DVD and managed to stay off my radar because the cover was horrid. It looked like every other piece of crap we got into the video store and so I never gave it a second glance.

I have no idea what made me decide to watch it that day but I did and instantly found one of my all time cult classics. About half way into the movie there appeared that same chubby pixie girl... and I finally learned her name. She played the part of a lonely motel owner's daughter who flirts like crazy with Kadeem Hardison's character... but instead of just being a typical flirt, she had something extra. It would be something I would look for in all her performances.

She played it unhinged.

Like - slightly psychopathic. She had all these ticks and mannerisms that smacked of borderline insanity... and I loved it. I had never noticed this same characteristic in Drop Dead Gorgeous but found it on repeat viewings.

I was hooked. I rented Cherry Falls for her name alone and got a much more subdued character - and a blonde this time too. However, her career went in a different direction to my viewing tastes. Girl comedy was never on my list and so, I bid farewell to her.

Today I am doing the same. Laugh if you want but I have her rendition of Somebody To Love from Happy Feet on my ipod. I may just listen and lament this tragic news.

Halloween II - the rest of it.

2009-12-18T11:36:00.000-08:00

Not worth the effort. Cha!

Halloween II - the first 45 minutes

2009-12-15T06:59:00.000-08:00

Usually when I watch a film and I check the time, to find 45 minutes have passed and not 10, it's a sign of a good film. So colour me shocked when this happened as I watched Rob Zombie's Halloween II... well the first 45 minutes.

I think the main reason for my shock was when I realised I actually was enjoying it. The aftermath of the first (shitty) movie was felt pretty heavily and Laurie Strode was a mess. The scene of them operating on her many wounds was something quite rare in horror - maybe a character might limp in the sequel but rarely get this screwed up. I also kinda liked the gore effects such as them removing a nail from a damaged finger, sewing up a huge X gash on her cheek and, my favourite, her splattered little finger. Yes I winced and yes I felt sick but a Rob Zombie Halloween film had made me feel 2 extra emotions instead of the usual rage.

When a doctor mentioned Laurie would need plastic surgery I thought this would mean a scar free Scout Taylor Compton for the rest of the film and, oddly, I was wrong again. It seemed like the film had me over a barrel... but his was only the opening few minutes.

The 2 guys transporting the bodies - I have no clue who these people actually are or who they work for - engaged in some almost witty banter. When Guy #1 said "What's the difference between Jam and Jelly?" I groaned at what I thought was smart dialogue but it was actually the set up to a minor smile inducing joke. Guy #2 and his obsession with wanting to screw a dead body was also pretty fun. Especially how Guy #1 had no idea how to take it.

Then came the 20 tonne concrete roadblock of a Cow. I have never hit a Cow with a large van nor have I ever seen this happen to someone else. I am pretty sure it wouldn't smash up the front end and only push the cow back a foot. I am certain the cow's legs would shatter and the van would suffer some damage and have bits of cow in the grille. It wouldn't be like hitting Superman with a Pinto. Anyway, Michael arises and kills Guy #2 by sawing his head straight off. Which was also quite fun.

Somehow, Rob Zombie believes White Horses symbolise something. He believes this so much that he has Michael seeing his dead Mother with a white horse everywhere. This serves 2 purposes: Number 1 - it allows us to equate Horses with Rage and so when Laurie sees a White Horse in a Rorsach picture we can go "Oooh" then not give a fuck. Number 2 is pretty obvious: It allows Rob Zombie to force more of his wife's horrible acting on us. Fuck you Rob Zombie.

So Laurie is in the hospital and she goes to visit Annie - Danielle Harris' sliced and diced character from the first. It's a genuine testement to how abnormally bad a killer Michael is. He spent almost 20 minutes carving Annie up like a goose and here she is stitched up with all her internal organs held in by HUGE stitches... then later we see Michael completely botched up Killing Loomis. Pathetic. Or maybe the Haddonfield hospital is just REALLY good at saving people.

Then Michael arrives and kills THE HELL out of a nurse. Seriously stabs her to death and beyond. He then stands there as Laurie runs off and gets pretty good distance on him. Laurie isn't the best at running however due to her leg being in a cast. I was amused at this for 2 reasons - the first being that when the nurse was helping Laurie back to her room I realised despite their technological breakthroughs in saving gutted people they don't seem to have one single wheelchair in the building! Secondly Laurie limps along with an IV drip stand and holds on to it with the right side of her body. Her right leg is in a cast and repeatedly hinders her movement, so she is obviously an idiot as by changing sides she would move much better. When the chase is on she loses the stand and slides down some stairs to work her way to the seedy side of the hospital. You know this place - we've been here many times in horror films - the rain runs through the roof and everything is filthy. Finally, as if this whole thing didn't already seem like an obvious dream sequence, she falls into a HUGE pile of bodies.

Then she makes her way to the gate and instead of hitting the guard station right away (with it's light on an everything) she runs up to the closed gate and wails. Boy does this girl wail.

The guard returns and it's Buffy's first Watcher and the guy from Wing Commander 4. I love this guy but it's obvious his death is mere moments away which sucks. He refuses to listen to her and talks over all her wailing. I'm thinking dream sequence or no that guy is an idiot.

Anyway it all ends rather rubbish but the scene has had some pretty tense moments. All in all I am enjoying Halloween II which is enough for me to let the little things slide.

So it's all a dream. We are now 2 years later and Laurie is a spoilt bitch living with the always brilliant Brad Dourif and Annie. Suddenly Danielle Harris looks the age she is whereas in the first film I was amazed she was playing High School at, what, 40? She actually feels like Brad Dourif's wife which is odd and she still looks hot. It makes you realise just how pathetic and immature Laurie is especially when she is whining and complaining about what she dealt with to a girl with scars all over her body. At this point kill Laurie and have Annie become survivor girl is my main thought - They went through the same ordeal and survived so she has what it takes.

Laurie goes and sees her therapist played well by Margot Kidder, who is no stranger to therapy, and the White Horses are brought up again. Then we follow Laurie to her... job? I think it is as a man tells her she is early for a change. She has a pretty hot friend there - hot until I realise she may be the speedy girl from Heroes - and another girl comes in who is a bit of a slut.

Here is where everything goes horribly wrong. Suddenly the girls start talking and it is with the same horrible "no girl talks like this" banter that killed Halloween 1 for me. I immediately want these girls to die. I want them to die horribly. I want it to be graphic and violent. I would instinctively masturbate.

Which I think Rob Zombie wants? I believe he wants to show us inside the mind of a sick, twisted psychopath SO MUCH he will try to turn you into one. For more on this just go read my Halloween 1 rant.

We then see what Michael has been up to for 2 whole years. He is a hobo living in the middle of nowhere living off dead animals probably. Some local farmers from Buttcrack, Texas (just outside of Chicago - Google Map it!) start giving Michael shit and he kills them.

Then he sees his Mother in a vision who tells him he must unite the family. This obviously entails brutally murdering his sister right? Makes total sense. So after TWO WHOLE YEARS Michael decides to go and get Laurie... and he eats a dog. Go figure.

We then see Brad Dourif talk about films for 5 minutes and Laurie throws up insinuating a psychic connection to her brother. This also makes no sense.

So, yeah, that was 45 minutes. I will be going back to get shit on some more but for now I am taking a calm break. Fuck you again Rob Zombie.

Harry says shit about STUFF I DON'T CARE ABOUT!

2009-12-11T19:15:00.000-08:00

Before the internet came into my life I heard the story of Harry Knowles. Although the story I heard was he was some big guy who ate too much and had the internet put in his room because he had no life. I don't know Harry nor do I care to. Like most people I can avoid him and let him live his life in peace.

Sadly, I often tire of the internet and all it's shortcomings (seriously I thought this place was a one stop shop of everything - I get peturbed to find it's limits) and I break off to see what is going on at Ain't It Cool News.

Now I am a lowly nobody who occasionally bumps away at his keyboard for fun, and lack of a girlfriend, so who am I to judge these folks? Well I am a person who gave up on SFX magazine when it seemed apparent that the writers were smug pricks, I am a reader of CHUD.com - Devin Faraci is a God to me - and I am a frequenter of websites... so there.

One look at AICN and you can see it's a mess. No clear interfaces just loads and loads of text, the majority of which is indecipherable. Robert Langdon would probably give up on this. Also, the posters rely on their Net Handles and post as these psuedonyms.

Ahoy! boasts Quint... He chose his name from a great film but still I get this image of this guy not being let into some shindig and proclaiming "Don't you know who I am!? I am Quint from AICN!"

Mr Beaks, Capone, some Wyrm guy... everything about this site puts me off. However, my main gripe is down below. At the bottom is a special section for Harry Knowles which features Headlines all beginning with "Harry..."

Harry says that LOVELY BONES is a lovely brutal film!
Harry mourns a listless melodrama buried under the Spectacular Effects of 2012...
Harry loved Zemeckis' A CHRISTMAS CAROL, but with mild trepidations...
Harry feels there is almost no ASTRO BOY in this ASTRO BOY movie
Harry calls WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE the best film he's seen this year!

and so on...

All I can say is "Who the fuck does Harry think he is?"

I make my assumptions on film by my own preferable taste and by word of mouth from people who write out of love for the craft. Devin Faraci for example, a man who I may not always agree on but his reviews are well thought out and written from a comedic and crafted peice of writing. I have also taken advice from Brad Jones - The Cinema Snob - who thankfully made me finally watch Inglourious Basterds and Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans just by having so much passion in the reviews.

Harry Knowles has been accused of pandering to the studios who give him the early screening or fly him out to a set visit. Personally, I think he is a media whore who believes his hype because some folks put him (or a character of him) in their film.

So if I want real reviews from folks who aren't just grabbing at attention in the hope of getting put on a movie poster I'll stick with Devin and Brad thank you.

Ain't it cool?

No Harry, Quint, Beaks et al... it AIN'T cool.

Breaking News!

2009-11-14T07:06:00.000-08:00

I am officially NO LONGER a nerd/geek/fan.

I have realised this due to my liking of:

The Star Wars Prequels
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Superman Returns
Transformers Revenge of The Fallen

Good day to you all.

How the hell do you screw up V?

2009-11-12T08:21:00.000-08:00

Back in the 80's when I was just a child, a TV show came along which absolutely blew my mind. It featured giant spaceships, lizard people and BALLS!

V was the shit in terms of awesome TV. It had a modest budget which seemed thinly stretched over a series of bad special effects and some of the worst acting seen this side of Saffron Burrows career. In order to pad this piece I will give you a storyline (although memory not great and too lazy to wiki it):

We start with Mike Donovan, TV camera-guy, and his chum reporting from some iffy country in the middle of a war. Despite the incredibly tight denim to the contrary, Mike Donovan has balls. As gunmen bear down on him a giant spherical ship looms in the background. The Visitors have arrived.

They offer peace and friendship but soon we learn that they have an evil motive - THEY WANT TO EAT US! At least I think that's what it is. They are evil lizards after all. Soon a resistance forms against them of good folk who know the truth... and Ham Tyler. Tyler is a mercenary who just seems to want to kick ass whatever the reason.

The show was amazing for it's time. The special effects are still very poor but for the 80's it's practically ILM worthy. The matte shots of the interior of the mothership are obviously that. However it works, it looks amazing even now. Marc Singer is one of the worst actors ever, although V is the only basis I have for this, but his character is so over the top hammy that it works. Almost every line he delivers makes me giggle and his way of aiming a gun where his other arm crosses his chest is terrible... but in a good way!

Jane Badler as Diana, the evilist of the evil lizards, was a childhood crush of mine. Her portrayal was taken straight from the soap operas that littered the airwaves at the time. The only word to describe her was "Bitch" and in a good way!

I could spend my whole life watching V. It was the precursor to so many TV shows today - the ensemble cast coming from different places and becoming a group against a common foe, a story arc that provided continuity and a multi layered story as well as having the balls to kill of characters. It was a show ahead of it's time.

So, how the hell do you screw up V? By remaking it into a cold, bland TV show. Flicking through the channels you could be forgiven for passing V as just another show. NOTHING in this show seems new or original and it's stumbling block is trying to be too good and failing. Many people have compared the show to Flashforward and they are right - you could easily move characters around these shows and you wouldn't really know.

The most annoying thing is whereas the original V had a huge cast it utilised them all. You truly got the sense it was a global thing and watching these characters find their way toward each other was well thought out and new to TV. As you all probably know the Visitors in the 80's were the Nazi's from space - this is something that could have been used in the new version.

"Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it" - the story can be told again and again. V 2009 stupidly forgets one important fact - NINE/ELEVEN. No way would humanity be so trusting especially the Americans! Yet within no time the Visitors are setting up shop and being granted access visas.

The 80's V had the Visitors arrive... and sit there getting the world into a frenzy of paranoia before appearing to reassure us... they were us! This was a time to give all the key players of the series a chance to be shown in their lives - their lives BEFORE the V's.

This is something we have not had and unless the new V bounds in with the tired cliche of the 00's - flashbacks - we never will. Our new V has about 5 characters and none of them have one ounce of the charisma Marc Singer put on screen.

The character of Tyler joining the Visitor's Youth thing is a prime example of where this show's heart lies. In new V he is doing it for a girl and 95% of his screentime involves having this annoying grin plastered on his face. Sure the girl IS hot and I would do the same but from a storytelling level this is inane. In the original series a young man joins up because he has no direction and is swayed by the V's promises. He is a sociopath who begins to abuse his power becoming the darkest character on the show - one who sides with the enemy at the expense of his family.

Also, the elderly Jewish man in the original that shows the kids how to spray-paint properly, adorning a Vistor poster with a huge red "V" is an important scene in the original. It shows us many different things - an old man teaching the young, a generational gap being broken, the beginnings of resistance. Above all else it shows heart - the old man, who would've shouted at kids doing this, realises it's a way to spread the message. I get chills at that scene in good and bad ways.

If new V is to succeed it needs to do ONE THING:

STOP! Kenneth Johnson made V. For that reason alone he is a genius and the father of modern Television (seriously we would not have Lost without this guy) and he has a future for V himself.

All the glossy effects and fast storytelling in the world cannot compare to a show with heart and balls.

Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel

2009-11-10T14:07:00.000-08:00

Never before have I had such serious reservations about watching a film as I did with this one. I love Chris O'Dowd (IT Crowd) and Marc Wootton (My New Best Friend)but the notion of a genre British film always fills me with dread.

See Britain rarely makes genre films and seems content to give us movies about rich, posh snobs falling for American girls or movies about Husbands beating Wives. Occasionally the odd gangster flick will surface - although thankfully not as many as once was.

For years I tried to get a film made that held middle ground for us common decent folk who weren't rich or agressive to our spouses but alas I failed. The release of Sahun Of The Dead proved that Britain was capable of better things but as always dropped the ball when it came to this film. Only in terms of advertising (why the hell did I just discover this film while browsing a tv show from 5 years ago??)

Three friends having a usual night at the pub find it is anything BUT usual as a trip to the toilet sends one of them hurtling into the future. On his return his friends scoff at him until they are all sent through time, travelling to both future and past (albeit only about 30 minutes past).

Throw in a feisty Time Traveller (Anna Faris) attempted to assist them and an evil woman sent to kill them and you have something very, very rare. A fantastic British Genre film!

With all the jokes about bodily fluids, masturbation and lots of swearing I was MOST surprised to find an incredible intelligence. This is a smart movie (although not as smart as Primer but a lot funnier) and no stone is left unturned. Like Primer I am wanting to watch the film again just to pick up on the strands that weave around the film. Did I mention I LOVE TIME TRAVEL!?

The film never goes too far and keeps the action confined to the Pub in it's various states which is budgetary genius. The ending is fantastic also but for the first time in ever I enjoyed a film so much I don't want to throw in a spoiler or even review it out loud.

If you are a sci-fi... science fiction fan then the film also throws a number of smart references your way including a Back To The Future reference so smart I am jealous I never thought of it.

Which is where this film gets me. It is exactly the type of movie I would've made. In terms of story, in-jokes and all round fun it plays to my film template incredibly.

Many reviews of the film have been harsh. I say fuck the reviews (except mine) and give this movie a try. You may find the rare gem I discovered tonight.

RATING: 10 out of 10

http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/9701752/FAQ-About-Time-Travel/Product.html

After Halloween Special

2009-10-31T17:51:00.000-07:00

So... do I suck or do my friends?

Considering I have had to spend Halloween night stuck in on my own I would take both answers at this point.

Fuck them because I got to sit down for a double bill of pure, unbridled terror (as well as all the sweets the kids didn't get.)

Paranormal Activity (2009)
What to say about this film that hasn't been said before? The story, as you may know already, is about a couple, loveable Katie and jerk Micah, who are suddenly dealing with weird phenomena in their house. Katie has dealt with this before but Micah is too excited at the prospect of "documenting" the happenings to show real fear. So, we see a series of nights in which creepy things happen to the pair; things that slowly get worse and worse until a pay off which kinda disappoints.

The other reviewers say that Micah is too unlikeable but I disagree. Sure he does everything in his power to mess with the entity despite being told NOT TO. Sure he brings in a Ouija Board despite being told NOT TO. However there is a realism to him that I can relate to - his first instinct in having a Video Camera? Sex tape.

Both characters are played well and don't suffer the fake/real acting of other fake/real documentary horrors. Katie is so adorable, and according to the internet is too overweight (???), whereas Micah's character undergoes a change that nobody seems to have seen. During the film his initial reactions are cocky and dumb, later he is defensive of his home, then he is protective of his girlfriend. Most people just seem to say "DOUCHE" and leave it there but some of the later scenes where he comforts his woman are quite touching.

Of course the film isn't available in the UK so I got it through ill means. Therefore I got the "original ending" which seems far too Blair Witch for my tastes and droned on too long. Having heard of the differences between this and it's theatrical sibling I can say I will visit the cinema on it's release.

Although hoping the DVD contains the sex tape deleted scene.

SCARE FACTOR NOTES: I stopped this film 5 times. It wasn't as chilling as [REC] but quite a few scenes left me unsettled. Curse my bladder for having no tolerance for energy drinks.

HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH
Thanks to Brad Jones (www.thecinemasnob.com) I decided to hunt down a copy of this movie. A film I haven't seen since the late 80's.

Dr TOM ATKINS witnesses a man immolate himself after murdering one of his patients - a crazy old guy with a Halloween mask. This begins his investigation into Silver Shamrock Novelties who make the masks and have a dark practical joke to play on the children of the world.

Firstly, TOM ATKINS, is the smoothest man in film. He is built like a wall, has the face of a 50 year old (in every film), can make a 'stache work for him, has deep marks on his cheeks and, despite it all, gets the cutest and hottest ladies after him at all times. He bedded Jamie Lee Curtis in The Fog about 5 minutes (TOM ATKINS time) after meeting her and in this movie meets the too cute Stacey Nelkin and beds her in about 7 minutes. I also think he could take Chuck Norris, in fact Chuck would just fall to his knees and propose to TOM.

The real star of this movie is Dan O'Herlihy as the villain and owner of Silver Shamrock Inc. As a kid I would only ever see him playing "The Old Man" in Robocop, spouting some of that films most memorable lines... "Dick, I'm very disappointed".

Here he is the true villain. Asked why he wants to kill the children of (presumably just) America he asks if he NEEDS a reason. Balls on this guy! His telling of the Samhain legend in his native "Oirland" is worthy of a campfire horror story - which in a way is what this film feels like. Everyone knows Halloween 3 was supposed to be a new direction in the franchise, telling different tales of Halloween in each one. Sadly, the flop of the film meant Michael Myers returned in the 4th.

TOM ATKINS (I fear if I don't repeat his name he will find me)

However the 2 things I have remembered with great clarity since my previous viewing are the 2 most gruesome moments - the "misfire" and the scene where we see the REAL Halloween surprise.

(with thanks to English Stan)

You see that? A bloody snake came out of the face!

Oddly enough I classify Season Of The Witch as the best of the Halloween films. It plays out like the urban legend of razor blades in the apples. Michael may have stalked babysitters but this film goes for the gut - It goes after the kids. In fact of the few deaths in the film the biggest one IS a child. It also contains an ending that, while a possible homage, is still as chilling and gripping an ending as you could make.

SCARE FACTOR NOTES: Whilst not "scary" as such the film plays as a creepy, gruesome sci-fi film. The real scares come from well crafted tension building moments and the stingers that occur whenever someone appears slightly from the edge of the screen. This simple action brings a sound like John Carpenter sat on his keyboard. Cheesy? YES! Effective? DAMN YES!

In closing was my Halloween a success?

No I wish I was out getting drunk.

Transformers 2 - Time to turn in my geek card

2009-10-09T11:24:00.000-07:00

So I am 30 minutes into Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. For the life of me I am enjoying it. Having read the numerous rants and ravings of the internet-o-sphere I was expecting a lot worse. So I am going to keep this blog open and come back to it when I find something to be angry about...

2 hours later. I can safely say... nothing. I totally enjoyed it.

As usual in the web age it seems that the "internet reviewers" have fallen upon the usual nit-pick bandwagon that other great films have fallen prey to. So lets look at their arguments:

1) Lack of identifiable Transformers.
Well to be brutally honest I couldn't tell you the name of a single character save for Sam and Mikaela. So if that is the case for the humans then why should I care for the Transformers?

2) The Hot Decepticon. Why?
It is perfectly understandable for the Decepticons to plant one of their own to follow Sam. His family have been intwined with the 'Formers for years so surely there would be a strong possibility of a connection shortly after. Aside from the military Sam is the only one who is in communication with the Autobots.

3) Confusing storyline.
I chuckle that the "intelligent reviewers" have trouble following a simple storyline in a 100% popcorn funfest. To sum it up - Sam sees symbols that will lead him to a key. This key will activate a big blow up machine. The Baddies want part of the Allspark that contains the location info. They steal the other remaining piece to bring back Megatron - Their leader. He is a minion of the Fallen who wants to destroy the sun for Energon (precious Energon!) and wants Optimus Prime dead as he is the only robot that can defeat the Fallen. Optimus Prime is killed and the Baddies go to get the loot. Sam figures the key can also resurrect Optimus. Sam gets there first. There is a fight. Optimus comes back. Goodies win. THE END!

4) Autobots appear and disappear.
Yes this is true but only if you are viewing this film for sheer asshat nerdery. Once again I didn't notice this at all during the film. Optimus is in a different area when he is killed. During the final battle the Autobots are there, shit goes down, then they return. This is a problem... why?

5) The Racist Twins.
Okay THIS I don't get. Maybe society has become wayyy too politically correct but I seriously don't see this as an issue. Fuck, Marlon Wayans still gets cast in movies playing this exact character so why when it's 2 robots does it become a problem? Okay I didn't find them funny but as characters they didn't offend my delicate sensibilities - believe me I am as PC as they come - and so I give them a shrug.

6) The Shard and Jetfire.
So Sam uses the shard to resurrect Jetfire. Not Optimus Prime. Okay... if you follow the movie every action has a reaction. They go from point A to B to C and at no time during the film does Sam have the ability to actually GET to Optimus. Being wanted by everyone to just be handed over to the Decepticons kinda silences just showing up at a Military Base dontcha think? Even so the possibility of the Allspark shard bringing a Prime back especially after he harnessed the full energy of the Allspark in the first film is pretty damn slim. Plus Jetfire didn't seem dead to me, more like he was on stand-by.

7) Jetfire teleports.
Okay.... and? It's a simple way of getting all the characters to point B from point A. I'm not gonna lose sleep over THAT.

8) Transformer heaven?
You know there are times I read something and it sounds bad. Like the ENTIRETY of The Happening. Then when I actually SEE it? It works. See I don't visualise Transformer heaven when I see it in the film. Sam was coded with the symbols from the Allspark shard. Thus he has been uploaded with information. So when he was on the verge of death it is totally plausible for him to see the vision he saw. The Primes in his vision a part of the coding. Hell the Allspark contained information on FINDING the Primes so surely that could have been included in Sam's vision?

9) Shia's hand.
I am using the Topless Robot complaints list for this and they mention how his hand injury is not "written" into the movie because nobody references it... What the hell? He appears from teleport with a burning hand and shows pain from it. Already I see this and understand: his hand? Damaged. Then we see Megan tend to the hand. Okay, I am sold. Sam has hurt his hand. In a film that is fast-paced and exciting do we really need to stop the film for someone to say "Hey, how is your hand?" or "Hey, your hand man?" The answer is no.

10) Devastator's Balls.
Okay. I only noticed this from the ONE part where it is mentioned and seen in semi close-up. A lot was made about this on the Topless Robot site in the running up to the film's release. Seriously? In no way did this take anything away from the film like the pissing scene in the first one. THAT really made me feel uncomfortable. In fact I was more troubled by the Dog on Dog action at the start - I seriously think Michael Bay is making Dog Porn in the same way Mice were used to entice Cats into watching Frank Cross' Live Scrooge adaptation.

11) College scenes. Mom's Brownies.
The one thing about a Transformer's movie is that it is, at it's core, a film about giant robots. Now, considering the complaints ABOUT the giant robots, it makes sense to have a focus on the human characters. See, there is an important thing in the world of film, you have to allow your audience INTO the movie. If you have an all robot film then we, as the audience, cannot become involved so it makes more sense to have human's in the action. The college scenes were fun in my opinion. His Mom's drug fuelled scenes actually made me laugh. So...?

12) Megan Fox.
I honestly do not understand the hate spewed at this girl. I am a fan. No amount of vitriol will take away from that. They attack her looks, her acting and her in general. Now as far as looks go she is a 10. I can honestly say she is a perfect specimen of a woman - it is a shame she made her name in Transformers because with the right vehicle she would be able to show she is made of better stuff. Actingwise she is competant. Her emotional range in a Michael Bay film was impressive beating all the other actors hands down. Her passionate plea to Sam as he lay dying was on the money and her scene as she nervously waited for her "Date" with Sam was sweetly played. I know Megan Fox can act - she's just waiting for the role in which to shine.

Now Megan Fox as a person? I don't know. She isn't in my circle of friends and never will be but I have read interviews with her and she seems so completely grounded it's scary. She spoke of how the limelight changes you and some days you want to just let loose and have fun but the watchful gaze of the Paparazzi prevents that. She is a quiet, personal and reflective woman and not a total wreck like most pretty stars. I have read about people who have interviewed her and say she is a nice person however these stories will be buried quickly by the hate filled stories and rumours about her. It's like in school where the pretty girl was bullied because all the men liked her - it's sad and pathetic.

It's my opinion that the MEN who don't like Megan Fox are either Gay, Lying or do not live with the vain hope she would date them. Lucky for me I live in denial.

So, in my opinion, Transformers 2 = awesome. Thanks a fucking bunch Topless Robot. I missed out on this at the cinema thanks to you.

The irony of Simon Pegg

2009-10-04T12:24:00.000-07:00

I used to love Simon Pegg.

Many years ago I created a tv show idea that would follow 2 guys who worked in a video store. It was semi-autobiographical in situation and in the idea that film governed their lives. You see, way back when I would get into situations that could be ripped right from the movie screen. I delivered rants and fired quotes from my favorite films and viewed my life as a TV show, occasionally firing glances at a fake studio audience toboot.

Then came Spaced, a show that was so well crafted and thought thru I just had to give up my show and admit it had been done (and done better) by Mr Pegg and his co-writer Jessica Stevenson.

In high school I had a friend, Sean, who had the worst acne of all the kids. He was slow and docile and so my friend Eddie and I nicknamed him Sean Of The Dead. This led to the idea of a sitcom in which 2 guys would return from a trip to Haiti where Sean would have pissed off a local witch doctor leading to zombiefication. The entire show would be one of those "hilarious circumstances" situations where my character would have to find ways of excusing Sean's undead actions.

In a time where there were no Zombie films since Return Of The Living Dead 3, plus at this age I was unaware of the continuing Zombi franchise, I decided to create my own Zombie trilogy that would re-introduce the genre.

"Zombies Take New York" would have a young video store worker finding true love on the eve of Zombie Armageddon. Once the undead attack he must get his best friend, his new girlfriend and his Mum to safety.

Of course Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright would release Shaun Of The Dead 8 years later...

However, I don't let myself become too pissed at this because Simon Pegg is a gifted comedian and a talented writer. Hot Fuzz was also an incredible film and further established him as a talent.

I don't blame him for his Mission Impossible III role even though it fell into the "parts Ricky Gervais said No to" territory. I even don't blame him for his part in Star Trek which he was rather good in.

What I DO blame him for is thus: In 1999 with the release of Star Wars The Phantom Menace, Pegg went into an assault against George Lucas. He spat venom in interviews and evn in the first episode of series 2 of Spaced. His character, Tim, was hurt by the film and spent the entire first episode banging on about it. As a fan of the show and, in many ways, identifying with his character I suddenly found something we didn't share. All of a sudden I was removed from the show and couldn't relate to anyone in it anymore which led to series 2 being a let down for me.

So as I re-watched Star Trek this last week I noticed something rather amusing. After all the carrying on and complaining regarding Jar Jar Binks, his place in Star Wars and uselessness at being comic relief... HIS character, Scotty, was teamed up with an ugly little 100% pointless alien character. This little thing had NO point, NO story, NO useful dialogue and NO reason for being anywhere near the film. He was only there a short while mid-movie but the REAPPEARED at the end for NO given reason!

Well done Pegg for contradicting yourself. Surely someone who understands USELESS characters in long awaited sci-fi movies could've turned to JJ Abrams and said "I don't like, want or even get this little guy!"

But no. You didn't. You failed.

You lost my respect as much as when you wore orange tinted shades at an indoor New Years Jools Holland Show... minus 50 for the shades and minus 50 for the fact you were at a Jools Holland show.

Yo... Zucchini!

2009-09-29T12:26:00.000-07:00

I love George Clooney.

There, I said it. He has a remarkable charisma that seems to be fuelled by one thing: his generel George Clooney-ness. He walks into a film and everything stops for him as if out of respect the world gives a small silence and a brief nod in his direction. I swear any straight guy on the planet, if they were being honest, would admit they have a little crush. However, they will not be able to explain it.

The worst thing is the charm won't stick to the screen. It follows him into the real world making interviews, appearances and photos in the tabloids just as bad a tease than the films.

He is a true classic actor in the style of Cary Grant but invokes so many more. Look at Clooney closely next time and you will see elements of Hollywood in it's prime. I'm sure he is the product of early genetic engineering wherein DNA was removed from every actor in Golden Age Hollywood and dumped into Marylin Monroe. She brought young George to term.

Clooney born 6th May 1961
Monroe died 5th August 1962

Maybe she found out the plan for world domination?!

Kennedy 22nd November 1963

When will it end!?!

Anyhoo, I am pumped to see Men Who Stare At Goats featuring Swooney... (ignore that) as a self proclaimed "Jedi Knight". Based on a true story etc. I would detail the story but other sites get paid to do that 'kay?

'Kay.

The reason for my excitement is Clooney being a comedy genius. He VERY rarely seems to flex his comedy muscles even though humor can be found in the majority of his work. His performances in Coen Brothers movies are the creations of comedy genius.

If you need any evidence that Clooney is the funniest performer in the world then go watch Return Of The Killer Tomatoes...

I stumbled across this film late on Sci-Fi and having nothing to do (Plus the Nudie channels didn't start Freeview for 2 more hours) I decided to sit and bitch about what I already knew: It's a low budget Troma film. What I soon realised was it was also the funniest film ever made. Seriously? Yes. Funnier than Airplane? Yes. The hit and miss ratio of Airplane and the HIT and HIT ratio of Tomatoes just puts the fruit first.

When Clooney appears he is a young big haired 80's kid. You can see the face but it doesn't feel like Dr Ross, almost like some bizarre alternate reality Clooney. This soon falls away when you start seeing the slight facial gestures and ticks that made him huge. He has the majority of the best lines too:

"That's the bravest thing I've ever seen a vegetable do."

Delivered almost perfectly deadpan but with a dash of sarcasm in perfect dosage. For the whole film Clooney seems like he is just there. Like he wandered onto the set and nobody could get rid of him. He seems to do the most ridiculous things that don't seem intentional (even if they were scripted) such as flutter one eye in close ups, repeatedly hold the back of another actor's jacket when playing fear and product placement.

Mike Myers is a hack. Everything he has ever done has been furiously ripped off from something else. The "product placement" scene in Wayne's World was done much better in 1988 - FOUR YEARS before. Watch both scenes and tell me it wasn't ripped off.

Go watch Return Of The Killer Tomatoes. Okay?

They are gardeners and carpenters, they are not tomato men

Video Hero and the Quest to clear George Lucas Part 1

2009-09-28T07:29:00.000-07:00

I have been putting this off for a while now despite it being one of the main reasons I wanted to start a film blog in the first place. I have an abundance of free time at the moment so here goes.

George Lucas is a visionary genius. No other person in the history of film has come close to matching his achievements and through him we have the cinema we take for granted today. He inspires many. Take Peter Jackson, who's earlier work was very Sam Raimi influenced, who created his own make up and special effects company much like Lucas. He single handedly created MERCHANDISING with the Star Wars toy range and is a pioneer in sound design (THX), special effects (ILM) and Pixar was an early Lucasfilm experiment which gave the world CG animation.

I don't think a single child growing up in the Star Wars era has not felt George Lucas' mark on them. Much as kids today, even if not into the Star Wars saga, are still effected by the films and tv shows that were influenced by Lucas.

The reason I was hesitant to write this blog is simple - it's going to be a long one. I am going to write about MY connection to George Lucas' work and lead up to the later works and my defence of them. So please sit back, get cosy and read about one man and his love of George Lucas.

1977 - the year I was born. A year made popular by the release of Star Wars. My Dad was a huge fan and I remember being bought the action figures from a young age. I can't remember first seeing the movie but remember wishing I was Han Solo. The story is simple - farm boy saves the world - but as a kid I wouldn't have understood the influences Lucas used in his creation of the film. I had NO clue who Kurosawa was and the idea of a Space Western was beyond me. What was creative was how George took old mythology and all these differing influences and put them together in a new and fresh way. I often wonder how he came up with Lightsabres - the single greatest sci-fi creation ever and how all the names of planets and characters were developed. To create such a diverse universe is an incredible feat.

The Empire Strikes Back followed and extended the mythology and the universe. The cliffhanger ending and Darth Vader's bombshell must have been great to see at a young age. I lament that I cannot remember and was probably too young for it to do anything for me as it would be great to have that hit you in the face. The film was praised for it's darker tone and more grown up feel. There is a reason it is a favourite among film-goers and that is that it doesn't force anything at you - it just flows, dragging you into the story. The single best example of this is Yoda. By the time Luke lands on Dagobah you are already suckered in and then, suddenly, there appears a puppet... and you don't realise. Watch any other Star Wars film and you see puppet like moments that break the reality a little. In Empire it was perfect.

Return Of The Jedi was a bit lacklustre. After perfection it is difficult to get rallied into a sequel that starts very slow and very boring and never quite picks up the pace. Oddly ROTJ features the best moments in the saga, namely the Sarlacc Pit sequence and the final race to the Death Star core. I guess that is something that bothered me - a second Death Star just seemed like they had nowhere else to go. How dumb would the Empire be to say "Let's build another. Lightning never strikes twice in the...." BOOOMMM!

Now I'm going to jump ahead a bit and zip straight to The Phantom Menace. I was a wreck when this film was released in 99. A girl I loved had left me and I was living alone in a crummy flat. I had started drinking heavily and whenever someone mentioned Episode 1 I would just stare back and say "It's only a movie for god's sake!" as I sat in my own misery.

I almost didn't get a ticket for the first night showing until a friend said he'd already got me one. So I picked myself up and went along to see the film I had waited years to see but didn't care about. And then a couple of hours later I left the cinema renewed with a smile on my face and a sense of giddiness about the future. The experience started when the opening blurb - A long time ago etc - popped onto the screen and the entire cinema ripped up in applause. It was a perfect moment with a couple of hundred other people all excited to see this film, something I haven't felt since. As for the movie? I liked it and I have watched it a few more times. It isn't like it was with the original trilogy especially as I am not a kid anymore. If this film had been released in 77 I would have loved it as much then as I do the originals but sadly not many others shared my feelings. Kids turn into adults and don't realise that the things we loved as kids are not the same. Anyone who has watched an old 80's genre show thinking I can't believe I used to watch this crap knows this. As a filmgoer The Phantom Menace was a great film but as a Star Wars fan it could never equate to the classics... nothing could. As I sit here now I haven't watched Star Wars in years... they just don't bother me anymore. The saddest thing I ever started hearing was "George Lucas raped my childhood". It was a pathetic display that if a movie can ruin your youth then maybe you WERE raped in your childhood and your love of Star Wars helped block the memories.

At this point I started becoming very disillusioned with fandom. The nerds were attacking this film like crazy and Simon Pegg even dedicated a whole episode of Spaced to the one joke of "Phantom Menace sucked". I didn't understand and, once agin, I found myself in a minority of fans. This got worse with the announcement of Attack Of The Clones where everybody who complained about Episode 1 dragged up the old, tired criticisms and laid them on the announcement. "Will Jar Jar ruin this one?", "Let's hope George isn't directing.." among others. This new culture of Internerds were scathing and viscious attacking, not only the film, but Lucas himself. The attacks were personal and professional even going as far as to mock his appearance. It was shameful, cowardly and horrific to read some of the posts at the time. Hopefully Attack Of The Clones would put this to bed....

It didn't. The movie was attacked again. These 2 films took a fortune at the Box Office and sold millions of action figures and toys so it was obvious kids liked them. Maybe I was just a big kid but I liked them too. Clones has some impressive moments and watching Anakin's attack on the Sandpeople is sooo shocking. It seems a line was added to the DVD release after the attack where Anakin states "I'm a Jedi. I'm supposed to be better than this", which struck me at the time. He can't control his anger but knows it's wrong - something I could relate to in my life.

I remember vividly getting to the Yoda fight scene. The entire cinema felt a collected nervous twinge as we knew what was about to happen. Then a sigh of relief when it turned out to be awesome. The sound design in the asteroid scene was also a personal highlight where all sound dropped at the moment the bombs exploded to be followed by a loud TWANG!! sound.

None of the fans held out hope for Revenge of the Sith. They again began hate campaigning against Lucas and the new Star Wars trilogy. Fans would write "He doesn't listen to us, he doesn't care for the fans", well would you? If my fan base were a bunch of petty, whining little brats I would switch them off.

George Lucas is a creator - THE creator of the SW saga and therefore is entitled to do whatever he wants with his franchise. When he announced the re-release of the original films with updated effects and sound I was interested to see what would be done. Like I said the original trilogy has sat around stagnant in my film collection and, honestly, could use something in there to pep them up a bit. New dynamic effects shots and some very crafty background additions really sold me back into these films. The fans hated it. I loved it. Typical.

Then George tinkered with them again for the DVD release and, once more, added a few additional touches. At some point I will list the changes in a blog and why I like them but I'll leave it at this for now.

So Revenge of the Sith was released and actually got some pretty good critical acclaim. People said that the film was an improvement on the previous films but many still had some issues. I was no exception - dying of a broken heart? However, this and a couple of other very small things didn't take away from the film. I cried at the end when Obi-Wan leaves his friend to burn - it was well written and superbly acted. The final fight leading up to it was a showstopper too. A flurry of blades in a climactic showdown we'd been waiting to see forever.

Plus with the release of this film - the saga was finished. I rewatched all the movies and realised something special. The entire Star Wars saga is the story of redemption of ONE MAN'S SOUL! How monumentally mind-blowingly awesome is that!

Everything in the entire trilogy was about Anakin Skywalker. The political maschinations of The Phantom Menace to the (NOW) tragic sacrifice for his son in Return Of The Jedi were all there to serve the story. SO The Phantom Menace is now THE ONLY WAY to have started the saga and all those who criticised it were wrong. George Lucas wanted to write this tale and did so with aplomb but the only problem was people liked it TOO MUCH!!

So who is the real villain in this piece? Not George Lucas but a group of nerds who couldn't see the saga for what it was: a 12 hour, almost Shakespearean in effort, tale of a man who does wrong beyond his control, pays the price and, almost too late, realises he must fulfill the destiny he was born for.

That is the reason cinema was created... and why George Lucas must be thanked for recreating it.

NEXT UP: Part 2 - Indiana Jones and the Whining Critics of Doom

George A Romero

2009-09-27T14:56:00.000-07:00

I have just read a review of "Survival Of The Dead", the new Zombie movie from George Romero. It was bad.

I am a fan and in true HollywoodRant fashion I shall begin talking about one thing and turn it into a list of something else.

Night Of The Living Dead was brilliant. Duane Jones as Ben is the best actor in a horror movie ever putting more emotion into a horror movie role I have ever witnessed. The story starts small and finishes slightly smaller with a sour ending that sticks in your gullet. Karl Hardman is also great as the asshole Harry Cooper (looking too much like Rob Corddry though) who is always one step from war with Ben. Given the belief these days that HORROR=GORE it is refreshing to see this black and white film being scarier than all modern zombie films.

Dawn Of The Dead is the favourite of many including me. I think it's as is said in the film: "This was an important place for them" and as you watch the film you almost feel you are IN the mall. We have all had to negotiate a busy shopping precinct - just imagine if the ignorant shoppers really were zombies! In all this film also adds scope and makes the zompocolypse seem real and BIG which is something I haven't felt with any other zombie film.

Day Of The Dead was the one I didn't like originally. Too much talk and not enough meat. Looking back it has the worst acting of the series and despite the natural astounding location it looks terrible. The lighting is off and what could've looked vast and epic looks tiny and dull. Viewed as an adult though it shines in terms of character. Plus Joseph Pilato... I love him.

The Zombie genre vanished for a while and just as I started to plan on resurrecting the Zombie film there was suddenly a slew of Undead films being released. One of those a Romero movie.

Land Of The Dead was hugely anticipated but attacked by critics and fans. The Romero films always had bad acting and poor dialogue (mostly poor due to delivery) but in the new age people were not prepared to give any leeway. This was a shame as Land is actually quite good and something new in the genre (which Romero created by the way?) and the next film I am planning to watch.

Diary of the Dead was the last outing for the Romero Zombies.I saw Cloverfield on DVD and Diary at the cinema - I still feel I made the right choice. It was smart, well shot and used the modern online media angle very well. In all honesty, like the other films, it is a Romero Zombie movie and, thus, is great.

I cannot wait until Survival... even though I know I will be in the minority once more.

Double Whammy - The Cinema Snob

2009-09-27T14:20:00.001-07:00

Yup 2 posts in one day. Maybe going for 3.

Look reader, I don't know why you are here or how you got here (from my view count I don't even think you are here) but I want you to tell your friends about me. Get me noticed as it were. This is not for me but a truly selfless act....

I want to tell as many people as I can about The Cinema Snob.

He's a character created and portrayed by Brad Jones in a series of review videos that got him banned from Youtube so he started his own site - http://www.thecinemasnob.com/.

I stumbled across him in passing and immediately became hooked. I watched all his videos in one day and rewatched them recently. He scrapes the bottom of the barrel in cinema and vents his anger and frustration at them for 6 to 10 minutes a video. The catch is, unlike other internet reviewers, the films he watches are never mainstream - they are the worst kind of cheap crap and he skewers them brilliantly.

I recently emailed Brad and poured praise all over his genius. Within a day he fired back a response (and not a one word short response) which cemented him as a great guy and one of the most knowledgable film guys out there.

I have a common nitpick with reviewers - they find it too easy to leap onto a bandwagon. Case in point: Gigli (I am so In Defence Of Drossing this movie) which wasn't the cinematic face rape everyone made out. The Indiana Jones 4 debacle is another - a good film which stands up well as entertaining, fun and inkeeping with the rest of the films (if anything Last Crusade is the worst).

So I mentioned it and, whereas I won't mention his reply, he GOT exactly what my own thoughts on the film were.

The Cinema Snob is almost what I set out to do with this blog but 100 times better.

So, in closing, GO check out The Cinema Snob. If you love film you owe it to yourself to.

Also I want Brad Jones to be my best friend. Just saying.

Platinum Dunes - A Nightmare On Elm Street

2009-09-27T13:35:00.000-07:00

I frequent a Nightmare On Elm Street forum... I'm not proud of it. Forums are the depths of the world of fandom full of semi literate people who are SO obsessed with ONE THING. They blindly fly off the handle at the slightest mention of anything that dares poke at the delicate frame of mind they exist in.

Case in point: Platinum Dunes.

Platinum Dunes is a film production company spearheaded by Michael Bay. It's sole purpose is to remake 80's horror movies for a modern day audience. Now as we know I am not a complainer in the world of remakes - they exist and I have absolutely NO WAY of influencing the Hollywood game - yet in the wilderness exist a pocket of people so deluded they believe whining can actually do something.

It can't. It never will.

In 2010 Platinum Dunes will release A Nightmare On Elm Street. The film is practically in the can and the trailer goes live tonight. It is unstoppable. Yet, here on http://nightmareonelmstreetfilms.com/forum/index.php you will find a bunch of people who still live in denial.

Forum topics exist on such subjects as "They have to use the ORIGINAL HOUSE" and "They have to use the ORIGINAL MUSIC" - note: they don't.

One smart reply stated:

"It better be the original house and it better be decorated EXACTLY as it was in the first one. The script should be the EXACT same one they used too. In fact get all the original actors to reprise their roles and use the same music too. In fact they should use the old footage that was filmed in 83 or 84 and re-edit it EXACTLY how it was. Then they should release it and call it Nightmare On Elm Street"

They then continued later with an interesting point:

"Isn't it better they do their own thing. This isn't a sequel - it's a remake and therefore aside from storyline and select characters nothing should be the same. It's okay to say "Platinum Dunes are hacks and don't do anything creative" but then complain when they DO creative things like NOT use the same house, music, filming locations etc. It boggles the mind. Why should PD have to cater to a crowd that instantly dismisses everything they do yet will blow their money on it when it hits theatres? If I were them I would be sat in a big office surrounded by bags of money laughing my ass off."

Which is my EXACT point on remakes. Unless you are going to alter the story and do something new then WHY the hell would they repeat the same things? I for one DO NOT want to put down a hard earned £6 at the box office to watch something I can sit at home and get for FREE!

When PD announced it's remake of Friday the 13th I was quite jazzed. I own all the F13 movies and can safely say the only good one is part 6. The final part of the original franchise was set in space and many people stated the same thing - this franchise is now dead because after taking the character to space, in the future no less, there is nowhere to go. Any continuance would be set in the future with the uber Jason killer and as such be redundant.

The ONLY possible option left? Reboot.

Now look at Nightmare On Elm Street as a franchise. The first part is good. Very good. Bordering on genius in terms of character, story etc. The second one (I recently rewatched) was a sharp, smart sequel that gave audiences more of the first. It was dark and twisted and has so many insanely obvious metaphors for young homosexuality it has to be seen to be believed. The third was once a favourite. In the days when I just watched movies I loved every aspect of it.

The freshness and extension of the dream mythos was the perfect route for the franchise and Freddy started his one liners that turned him into a truly remarkable beast - a killer who made fun of you while he killed you. Now, as a surly failed screenwriter, I pick films apart and Elm Street 3 is fodder for the beast. It started the "Bastard son of 100 maniacs" angle - like Rob Zombie's Halloween it started giving us MORE info on why Freddy was who he was. I find in MANY cases the simple facts are the more powerful - Freddy was a child (molester*) who was burned to death by a hate mob - perfect! Also the one liners... Freddy was HUGE when I was a kid and like most kids I loved him. Wether this was due to my own insecurities and being a bullied kid I dunno but he was that guy nobody could mess with. Except he was a CHILD (MOLESTER*)!!! We NEVER should have been given the option to relate, feel or side with Freddy ever.

Elm Street 4 was the bridge between the last kids from Elm Street and the new kids in town. At this point the acting quality dropped sharper than Freddy's wit and the "kid's" became more and more stereotypical. It also introduced something else which annoyed me - when we first see a kid we are immediately introduced to an element about them which will become their death. So if a character is noted as being afraid of bugs then, lo and behold, Freddy makes them a bug - a character who is bulemic? Well they will be fed to death! So obvious and so lame. Part 4 tried and failed to be anything more than entertaining and an unwatched DVD in my boxset.

This goes for 5 too. Dream Child could've been more but there is a tonal shift with the rest of the series. It tries to be gothic and comes off as cheap... very cheap... and did I mention dull? It also has THE worst character in the series - Yvonne. She cannot act and she is written as such a bitch (unintentionally of course, I think we are supposed to like her or something) that I grind my teeth at the sight of her. Also Mark... Mark is a dickhead who I would punch if I ever met him.

Maybe this was intentional as part of the making Freddy likable and the hero of the series? I have never understood why the protagonists in horror ARE so fundementaly unlikable and it seems to be getting worse. I watched The Hills Run Red last night and out of the 3 main characters only one (the Guy) was passable. His girlfriend was cheating on him with his best friend in the first 10 minutes - then I'm supposed to care about them!

Freddy's Dead was the end. The only thing they could do was bang on a shitty 3D ending. It didn't work and is apparently the lowest taking Elm Street movie. They killed him. He was dead and gone forever...

I DO NOT and WILL NOT include Wes Craven's New Nightmare in this list. It is a work of genius and shouldn't be thrown in with the others.

The character of Freddy ran out of steam once the pulled him from the shadows and shone light in his (eventually non gory) burnt face. There is nowhere to take the character anymore.

Except... Reboot?

*Molester in brackets as I had always believed Freddy to be a molester of kids. Wes Craven apparently rewrote molester to murderer in the wake of recent molestor news. Fair enough.

Remakes...

2009-06-09T13:13:00.000-07:00

I am like the average psychotic crazed movie fan in that I despise the idea of remakes. I am also like the average psychotic movie fan in that I actually enjoy them on release.

Currently Hollywood has a slew of remakes, re-imaginings and reboots in the pipeline. Commando, Predator, The Running Man and Total Recall have all been announced in the last couple of weeks. Wait! Pattern forming? Nah.

Over the next few paragraphs (or until I tire of it) I will attempt to dissect the remake issue from points of view of the fans AND the studios and give the pros and cons of this celluloid hot potato.

So beginning with a popular one...

"Why remake X when the original is a classic?"
Well the answer is easy - MONEY! Over the years of working in a video store I saw shitloads of films that were flat out copies of classics. 30 or so were Campers being slaughtered by a faceless killer. These films never rented that well with the "in the know" crowd and were often picked up for fun. None of these films had "Friday" or "13th" in the title but if they had perhaps more folk would have picked them up.

A remake is often in name and situation only. Dawn Of The Dead was a pleasant surprise when it hit cinemas and many people lapped up the rollercoaster, tongue in cheek fun of the film. Just months prior to this EVERY horror fan was frothing at the mouth over the very notion of remaking it. It went on to good numbers through sheer word of mouth proving a remake can work.

Funnily enough many remakes are slammed despite the original product being substandard. Hell, I love Friday the 13th as much as the next guy but should I genuinely give a crap about a remake? Was the first film such a Holy Grail that it should remain untouched? The F13 franchise got worse as even it's fans will admit so isn't the only logical alternative a reboot?

As it turns out the film was not bad. Better than some of the later offerings in fact.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre - After the initial shock of the film dies down it has it's merits but I believe you can see why Tobe Hooper hasn't made a good film since - he isn't that good. TCM is the cinematic equivalent of The Beatles - many folks just say it's good because the feel they have to in order to fit in. The remake was off the shelf stuff and is only memorable to me because R Lee Ermey is a legend no matter what he does (Saving Silverman anyone?).

The Hills Have Eyes - I watched the original for no reason than I just did. There was no anticipation or notion in mind. I was bored so I rented it. It was alright - worth a rewatch but was it a classic? I also rented The Last House On The Left same day. That one was planned after picking up Hills so I went into my Craven-athon expecting nothing and that is what I got.

The remake was... I honestly cannot remember. I know it had the woman from Lost in it but everything else is gone. Without Michael Berryman it had to fail. I have yet to see the Last House remake and probably won't.

My Bloody Valentine - The original was typical 80's slasher fun - The remake wasn't too bad and retained the fun element. The twist ending was so obvious despite the red herrings slapping you in the face and groin.

However, the above represents semi decent films that were remade. What about the true classics? I've already mentioned Dawn Of The Dead but what about...

The Fog - One of the creepiest horror films imaginable and a joy to watch again and again. The remake turned it in to a fucking ghost love story.

Halloween - see previous post.

Day Of The Dead - Poor acting, bad camerawork - and that was the amazing original! The remake? Oh I fucking hate the remake and everyone involved. Steve Miner.... humph.

Night Of The Living Dead - great film, very dark and real and poorly acted. The remakes? Tom Savini's bloodless 1990 version was alright-ish but the 3D version was atrocious but in a way that I wouldn't mind rewatching it.

However, Nightmare On Elm Street...

This is where I have to put on my nerd cap. The above movies are fair game but NOES is a true horror classic. In 50 years I will be watching this film with my great-grandkids and they will be laughing at the cheesy acting and poor effects. I'll be hitting them with my cane and telling them how films aren't the same anymore. But, despite all this, I am slightly excited to see how it turns out. Jackie Earl Haley has proved himself perfect for the role and I cannot really complain. Plus Hot Girl from Harper's Island! Woo!

I am sooo torn.

One studio argument is that the remake will inspire folks to see the original thus giving the classic a new audience. This much is true despite the label of hogwash slapped on it by the internerds. This is the case with My Bloody Valentine. I rushed to see the original before I saw the remake whereas without the remake MBV would have passed me by forever.

Then again, I would love to see a remake of the Running Man. The original is a classic bit of fun but is mired in 80's eightiesness. A remake would be great in this twisted world of reality TV.

Also The Evil Dead. A true legend of a film that I wouldn't be too mad to get remade... as long as I was remaking it.

In my effort to dissect remakes I have just confused myself. Stupid myself!

Christmas films (belated)

2008-12-27T16:20:00.000-08:00

Ah the season of giving! As a special treat every year I like to sit back and enjoy some of my favourite yuletide cinematical offerings. I detail them now and also add wether they can be enjoyed only at Xmas or anytime of year...

1) Die Hard. Always on my list (that I check twice out of OCD) this film sums up the season as a whole. It has the promise of goodwill and cheer and turns into malevolence and one-liners. Set in LA it also has the bonus of no snow which immediately makes it a film you can enjoy whenever you feel. For me that feeling is as regular as toilet breaks. Many cite this as being one of the first "heroes that bleed" movies - however, that honour goes to Indiana Jones IMO - but you cannot help but feel for McLane as he limps out in the last showdown with blood gushing from everywhere. He looks drained and ready to give up but still smokes 2 bad guys.

2) It's A Wonderful Life. I really shouldn't have to say anything about this film. It is perfect in every way. I blub endlessly as the snow begins falling again and he discovers Zuzu's petals are back in his pocket. In fact I don't think I have ever watched the end of this film without foggy vision but it never ceases to give me the oomph of a feel good classic. Plus as the film is set over different time periods it is also a film to be enjoyed at any time of year although saved for the season is best.

3) Reindeer Games. Known as "Deception" in the UK and thus destroying the analogy (Affleck plays a guy named Rudy) I went into this film for one reason. I have mentioned my love of Affleck movies (Yeah Gigli? So what?) and this film appeared on my list of things I needed to see. As a bonus it was one of Charlize Theron's "get them out" films she made before going legit. So a bunch of hoods get Affleck to plan a robbery and then spend the running time beating him up a lot. The film is dynamite. If you get the chance watch the Directors Cut - IT IS VICIOUS. In one scene the villain Gabriel (Gary Sinise) throws darts at Ben. It's a wince inducing scene in the original cut - the DC features about FIVE more darts and each one going in. This really is a Christmas film. I have watched it outside of the holidays but it loses something. Still worth watching for the anti-christmas vibes.

4) Surviving Christmas. Yep Affleck returns. Won't bang on about this film but it is pretty sweet. James Gandolfini plays a fat hard ass who rents out his family to lonely Affleck who learns the true meaning of Christmas or something. I don't care - it's great for Christmas.

5) Jingle All The Way. As your respect for me dwindles dear reader, I feel I have to say that I watch films for one reason - entertainment. If a film isn't entertaining then I switch it off and I try not to bang on and bitch about it online... much. Jingle All The Way is so much fun you forget you are watching Arnie spectacularly fail at comedy AGAIN!! It just works. Also I have to admit the spirit of Christmas even makes me misty at the end. IT'S TURBO TIME!

6) Scrooged. A given. Bill Murray plays asshole brilliantly. Some may say this is because he is one but he was my hero from the age of 8 so I ignore. Frank Cross is such a bastard he makes Scrooge look like my grandad (who was awesome). The bonus is his redemption is almost forced upon him not by subtle influence but by the harsh reality of his death. Scrooge was almost convinced throughout his journey whereas Frank is constantly fighting it until he is set on fire during his own cremation. Then realising he isn't dead he "changes" for the better. I love watching it and trying to work out if I'm truly convinced in the change.

So this is all a roundabouts way of telling you how I spent my Christmas Day viewing. I watched the following:

1) Phantasm III
2) Phantasm oblIVion
3) Motel Hell

and I started watching Rec but gave up when it got too late.

What is wrong with me?

Why I dislike Kevin Smith.

2008-09-11T18:58:00.000-07:00

I never knew Smith was a hate figure.

I always believed him to have an enormous following of abject worship and the only people who wanted to cause him harm were the religious nuts who were anti-Dogma. Way back when I met a good friend through Smith's work. One morning he came in late to work and explained he had to buy a copy of Mallrats. So instead of disciplining the guy I asked to borrow the movie. To which he said "Only if you watch Clerks first."

So, that very night, I rented Clerks and was blown away. Having spent years trying to come up with a film I thought I could make independently along comes this guy that does just that. However, he did it with such flair and genius that it set up home in my heart. Working in a video store (or retail in general) this film speaks to the few, the tired hard working people who have to deal with the inanities of life and work. All the while there is the constant balance of work and home and trying to measure the two.

Mallrats was given to me and I raced home to watch. It became a favorite immediately, once again speaking to that part of me I had never seen interpreted in film before. Just as Smith made Mallrats as his Animal House I wrote a movie called Poolgods to be my Mallrats.

Chasing Amy happened at a time when I was involved in an oddly similar situation. Even worse the situation ended the same - the girl walking away leaving me a hollow shell. I still watch the film with a pain inside for what could've been but either way I'm Affleck.

Dogma. The first film of Smith's that actually FELT like a film. A good one too. Sure a little disjointed and overly dialogued but still it was... well WHOLE. The characters had long arcs and twists to their being and the film relied heavily on emotion - played brilliantly by all the cast.

But then something happened. Something bad. Silent Bob wasn't silent anymore and Kevin Smith suddenly had a voice... about everything.

I couldn't open a magazine without Smith waxing lyrical about something or other and it built to a point where I stopped looking. I was scared I would start to hate him and in turn myself. See Kevin Smith was me but succesful, his voice had been heard and as all my scripts and ideas piled up it became more and more clear. It wasn't jealousy but I couldn't stand hearing Smith using cool expressions that seemed too young for him. "Flick" to describe a movie, "Cat" to describe a person... I cringed whenever I heard it.

Nevertheless I enjoyed Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Jersey Girl. I LOVED Jersey Girl. It was an amazing story and well written too but the performances were awesome. I'll save Affleck adulation for a later blog (My Affleck-tion - coming soon) but the young girl was incredible. Plus, like so many Smith films before it, this movie spoke to me now as a father.

I bought An Evening With Kevin Smith and watched it many times - one thing about the guy is he can damn well spin a yarn. I bought the second, Evening Harder, and then once again it fell apart. Whereas the first DVD was edited highlights of numerous shows, the second was two full shows. So all the bits that were not as good were left in and Smith just seemed to ramble on and on. Also every sentence (and if you own it go check) seems to end with "N'shit" - EVERY SENTENCE... seemingly.

This was just all I could take. I watched both shows getting more and more frustrated n'shit. But then his opinions were everywhere. To this day Smith shows up all over with his blog "My Boring Ass Life" reading like a big smug "I'm better than you" to everyone. I wish I could say not having to work a meandering 9-5/6 job and hanging out with every celebrity going just to enhance my name dropping skills is "boring".

Currently, Smith is touting his new film "Zack and Miri make a porno" and for the first time in a long time I cannot actually work up the excitement to see the film. I haven't even viewed the trailer mainly because of two things: More internet Smith news regarding the MPAA and Seth fucking Rogen.

Rogen just seems to be everywhere. Click on a website and it'll be full of ads for Pineapple Express, which is another film I don't care about. Look, he may be a lovely guy and a talented person but I don't like him. He exists as a person I just wouldn't get along with - especially after his weed advertising on The Daily Show.

Now Smith won't shut up about his new film Red State. Plus his new movie with SETH ROGEN - YES ANOTHER ONE!!! When SMith hired nobody but Ben Affleck I was okay, now it seems Rogen is his new go to guy.

Maybe I just wish I could go back to the days of "Snootchie Bootchies"?

In regard to Ghostbusters III

2008-09-07T13:29:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has read my Ghostbusters Two much blog may wonder what my opinion is on the news about Ghostbusters 3.

My word is "shit".

And my follow up is "Fuck Seth Rogen".

Now my one reader will be sated. And he is me anyway.

Horror Sucks (Now with added The Strangers!)

2008-09-07T12:56:00.001-07:00

As you may be able to tell I'm not big on cinemagoing. It's partially down to the proliferation of Mobile Phones, the endless chit-chat from people who think because the sound is loud they have to TALK LOUDER and kids generally fucking around. However, one of the biggest reasons is - movies today generally suck.

I went through a stage from birth until a couple of years ago where I saw nothing but great films. Even if a movie wasn't great, the experience of seeing it with my friends was always good. Then came the run of horrible movies - Starsky and Hutch and Van Helsing for starters.

This is all a roundabouts way of filling you in on my sucky horror run. It featured Hack, P2, The Strangers and more.

Hack has an interesting idea but it's executed in the worst way. Plus it features one of my all time pet peeves - the shameless referencing of other movies. When done right it can be a clever in-joke for fans of the genre - case in point Final Destination's characters being named after Horror movie directors. When done wrong you get Hack. One of the most annoying things in film is when people sit around and talk about other (better) movies just succeeding in making you think - Yes, compared to them this film is horrid. Plus as a film fan I have had my fair share of conversations about movies but these guys take the idea way too far: The punk chick and the nerd, the quiet girl and the exchange student etc. all saying "So, what's your top ten Frankenstein movies?" and then some other saying "I like Young Frankenstein" and the response being "One of Mel Brooks finest films..."

What does this achieve? If you're writing a script and cut and pasting IMDB then you should quit now.

P2 wasn't actually too bad. It was very much in the vein of the remakes that pepper Hollywood although I don't believe it is (I don't use IMDB). The problem being Rachel Nichols. Not a major problem but more of a studio choice no doubt.

Her firm, supple breasts caused me to seriously not follow this film at all. Whereas it is an interesting choice to have them exposed throughout almost the entire film I seriously kept thinking about them instead of caring for her. Wes Bentley was quite good and it was different to see a psycho played by a good looking actor instead of him having a creepy deformity. But those breasts... One whole day on from watching the film and I can't NOT think about them. The ending was kinda odd too, normally the end being the heroine shoots the villain or blows him up, in P2 she LIGHTS THE GUY ON FIRE and WATCHES HIM BURN.

Jesus!

Rob Zombie's Halloween. Man it is crap. One hour of telling a story of a disturbed little boy (that REALLY didn't need telling) and another hour of trying to remake Halloween by... ahem... having all the females turn into sex obsessed sluts who talk like a horny 40 year old imagines young schoolgirls talk. I seriously believe Zombie wanted to make his own wank movie and this is what we got.

Plus what was with every random character with only 2-3 minutes of screentime being played by genre actors. Brad Dourif, Ken Foree, Dee Wallace, Udo Kier, Clint Howard, that hook nosed freaky guy who always looked like his skin was too tight. It just seems wasteful. Was Jeffrey Coombes unavailable or just sensible?

The dialogue and acting is horrific. Sherri Moon used to be great to look at but couldn't act and now she can't do either. Sure she's still kinda pretty but I'd prefer to see her try her hand at something NOT made by her husband.

Devil's Rejects on the other hand - pure genius and one of the best directed and written films ever. GO FIGURE!

And The Strangers. It was doing the rounds and had a quite interesting trailer that seemed creepy enough. However, it was more of the same. Villains that could disappear and reappear randomly without anyone noticing, stupid leads who at one point make the right choice by hiding in a corner of a dark room with one entrance holding a shotgun! Then after their dumb friend, seeing something is seriously messed up, walks into the house NOT turning off the record player and NOT shouting for his friends gets shot instead. Dumbass.

Then the man decides to go outside and leave the woman inside A HOUSE WE ALREADY KNOW ISN'T IMPERVIOUS! To which, despite HAVING A SHOTGUN, he is captured. These people are seriously too dumb to live. Plus Funny Games was much, much better.

As Halloween approaches I'll continue this hunt for a great horror film. Then I shall give up and watch [Rec] again.

I'd jump on The Dark Night bandwagon...

2008-07-29T15:59:00.000-07:00

but the damn thing sped off weeks ago.

So yeah, I guess i'm late going all googly for TDK but a promise of free tickets was too good to waste. When the free tickets failed to materialise it was down to me to slap the £14 down to see this film.

Worth every penny. Well, worth £7 for myself but not the full £14 for both of us. Why? Not enough Bill Fichtner that's why... When is someone going to realise Bill Fichtner is one of the best actors out there. In fact if they decided to remake Dirty Harry I would be pissed unless Fichtner was onboard in the title role.

I digress, as usual, I could say TDK is THE best superhero film out there. Is it better than Superman The Movie? Well, yeah but it isn't in the same league. It's NOT a superhero film but an incredible crime drama and morality play. Whereas some have been critical over the dialogue (idiots) I have to say that this movie succeeds in it's tone and speech more than as an action film.

Oddly though it fails as a sequel to Batman Begins. It's almost like 2 totally different worlds from 2 entirely different franchises. I may need to see BB again but I know i'm right.

Seething Hatred says: Ghostbusters Two... much?

2008-07-12T17:10:00.000-07:00

I can't remember how I became enraptured by Ghostbusters. I was 7 at the time. It was probably either my father or Ray Parker Jr's theme song that decided it. But even before the movie was released I was a fan. I had a poster on my wall - one that only showed the Terror Dogs - and had bought the single played on endless loop on my record player. I had the game for the Spectrum which I played religiously for hours at a time and all this BEFORE the movie was released.

Obviously seeing the film was the real kicker. Still holding up today it was the greatest mix of different elements. Ivan Reitman has tried numerous times to capture the spirit (no pun intended) of the film with Evolution and My Super Ex-Girlfriend, as has Columbia with Men In Black. But none of these could replace Ghostbusters as the phenomenon it was and still is.

I had all the merchandise I could get my paws on and the cartoon series was the pinnacle of 80's cartoons and my own obsession. Yeah... OBSESSION! I was hooked on every aspect of the film even going as far as to study the paranormal with extreme force, essentially turning myself into what the Fox Mulder would become. If you look back at my school photos you will see me, age unknown, smiling while proudly displaying a Ghostbusters "No Ghosts" sweater. I could draw all the characters as well as do passable impersonations of the cartoon counterparts. Even worse getting my hands on my sister's razor I attempted to give myself a receeding hairline like my idol Bill Murray (if only i'd waited until now when I'm getting my own.

1989 was the best year. With Indy 3 and Back To The Future II coming soon, as well as a sequel to Ghostbusters, it was by far one of the best years to be a film fan. I, once more, began snapping up merchandise now labelled with the Ghostbusters II logo. I would watch the trailer on constant repeat saying the line "Sometimes, weird things happens and someone has to deal with it. So who you gonna call?" along with Murray. I was in heaven.

I remember taking the day off school to go see the film with my grandad. Looking back through those rose tinted glasses it was one of the best days ever.

Years later, I still would watch Ghostbusters and the cartoons I had taped religiously. I had grown and so my obsession had wavered. I had collected comics, action figures and lunchboxes. The only thing I didn't have was the Proton Pack as it was too small for me. The cartoons had huge replay value mainly due to the writers excellent stories. They certainly weren't afraid of having to pull punches as in the episode "Knock, Knock" where you genuinely believe the GB's are gonna die and "Slimer, come home" with one of the scariest villains in it's history.

Then there was Ghostbusters II. I had it on video and had watched it once or twice and each viewing had left me colder than the last. I still feel that way today, in fact it was on TV not long ago and after five minutes I switched it off. Why? This is why...

5 YEARS LATER...

...goes the tagline. Of course they are right and so I expected the Ghostbusters had fallen on harder times but didn't expect what had actually happened. There is Dana with HER BABY! Kiss of death for any franchise - throw in a fucking kid! After some tosh about a runaway buggy and some lame shots of the baby bouncing around all is well. As well as this film is going to be.

Ray and Winston pull up at a posh house and we're led to believe they're about to face something scary and awesome. Well, it is scary watching a bunch of lame child actors running around screaming HE-MAN! See they are hired to be the entertainment at a kids birthday party all because the company is bust and there are no more hauntings plus they were sued by New York for damages caused in the first film.

This is my RULE NUMBER ONE for sequels: DON'T FUCK WITH THE ORIGINAL! Once you establish a good, happy ending don't start the next one with "Oh everything turned sour." Now I can't watch Ghostbusters ONE without thinking "And then they get sued." To add insult to the many insults placed on Winston Zeddemore he is shown as the only Ghostbuster who doesn't have a job. Peter hosts a tv show, Ray owns a book shop and Egon is a researcher. Winston... well he goes to kids parties with Ray and dances for peanuts. Why is Ray doing this anyway? A simple line to show he was trying to keep the dream alive would be nice - otherwise he just looks pathetic.

So Dana is worried (and not because he overly homosexual boss is hitting on her) and goes to see Egon and Ray regarding the pushchair incident. Peter goes along and we find out, after GB1, Dana left him because he acted like a prick. Typical woman - you risk your life and the safety of thousands by blowing a hole in this dimension and all it takes is one misplaced comment and they're off. We then start the "Ooh Baby" scenes that will appear sporadically throughout the film. By this point even as a kid I noticed none of the guys smoked anymore. In the first I don't think a scene went past where nobody had a smoke. Memories of Winston saying "That's a big Twinkie" while blowing out enormous quantities of smoke had probably turned me to smoking but WTF? This coupled with inane baby chatter had already pushed me too far.

So long story short - they investigate and find a river of slime which feeds of negativity (audience reactions) and are arrested for doing stupid brooklyn accents to police men. Egon is called Ziggy and says "Yo!" in possibly one strong reason to break the pinky of Harold Ramis. In court an angry judge shouts until ghosts appear. I was angry too as my favorite trailer line now replaced "weird things happen" with "shit happens" and unfamiliar with the slogan I just felt it unnecessary. So they trap the ghosts and immediately set up the business.

On the basis of TWO ghosts. With NO capital. Plus the fact NOTHING seems to have happened in the last 5 years wan't this risky? So they have all new outfits and weapons and, most annoyingly, they have the new "No Ghost II" logo on the car, the firehouse and their uniforms. For US, THE VIEWER, to have a ghost holding up 2 fingers makes sense but for them in the film? They don't answer the phones "Hello Ghostbusters Two!" So for that I call "BULLSHIT!" Plus their phone number, 555 2368, is now JL5-2020. That is also crap. Dunno why.

So, Dana's gay boss is taken over by an evil painting who wants Dana's baby so he can... ah forget it. After her bathtub tries to eat her she goes to Peter's where he proceeds to go all "Ooh Baby" with the kid. BILL MURRAY!! I thought that man had balls. Ray and Egon further investigate the slime and find out it reacts to emotions. Winston vanishes having not being involved in the court scene and only showing up in a montage. When he returns it's to watch a dancing toaster.

Ernie Hudson has appeared in some great films. Most notible was his turn in Hand That Rocks The Cradle and to a lesser extent The Crow. In this film he is there in order to make up the numbers. I remember seeing interviews where the cast and crew were overjoyed at how they got all the cast back. Seriously did we really need Rick Moranis back. He gets more screentime plus his own scenes! After the dancing toaster Winston is gone AGAIN only to return when they need someone to be run over by a phantom train. Possibly the most degrading scene turning the hard as hell character (the muscle of the team) into a screaming girl.

So the mayor's aide lock them up to shut them up while all over the city ghosts start turning up. Louis and Janine are babysitting the brat. Now I haven't mentioned Janine yet but this is the scene where it hurts the most. I crushed on Annie Potts in GB1. I thought she was "all that" mainly because she had short hair which suited her beautiful face. In the cartoon series the funky version became another childhood crush. Something about her hairstyle and short skirts was arousing for a boy hitting puberty. GB2 Janine looks like a joke. Her hair is offensive even by 80's standards and she has gone from a strong, independant, straight laced woman to a quirky, quite dumb, slutty girl. Would the original Janine put a baby to sleep using franchbread pizza? Or thrown herself at Louis Tully? At least it gives Rick Moranis more screentime eh? Ohhh...

Anyway, Dana's baby gets kidnapped. As she climbs out of the window just watch Moranis shove his head out knocking her arm. Not the wisest thing to do when someone you know is venturing out onto a ledge above a massive drop. She goes to museum, slime wall appears, Ghostbusters freed blah blah. Winston gets his fifth line (fifth AUDIBLE) and hey realize they have to make everyone in New York happy to crack the negative energy shell.

This is the one clever idea in the whole film but it doesn't work. Wether it's bad special effects or no actual sense of urgency watching the Statue of Liberty plodding down the street it doesn't jibe. They were trying to top the Stay Puft Marshmallow man but fail and even then, in 1989, I saw the strings, that glimpse into the backstage world. It was obvious that the Ghostbusters weren't shouting at the crowd but were on a soundstage in a fake head mock up. Gone was the excitement and the feeling of watching something cool. Instead I was cheated and it got worse once they finally breach the museum. Vigo steps out of the painting and is soon forced back in where he takes a more demonic visage. Then he posseses Ray - a deleted scene earlier would've explained this a bit more - but instead we have Ray pointlessly walking RIGHT UP to the evil painting. Okayyyyy, still not as lame as Vigo paralysing the GB's giving Bill Murray mugging time to PG smack talk the baddie.

Ray is slimed and the guys fire protons at the painting and Vigo dies. Anti - fucking - climactic. The painting is revealed to have been originally four guys watching over a baby. The guys look like the Ghostbusters. WWWWHHHAAATTT!!!

All in all Ghostbusters II is horrific. I honestly would never watch this film again which is a shame. In fact in order to write this I STILL didn't watch the film, instead I used the seething bitter memories I still hold in my dark part of my brain. The first Ghostbusters was real world, smoking, drinking, swearing and horror whereas Ghostbusters II is a kids film and removes all of it. As a kid I had no idea what a "pecker" was or what "Dickless" meant. Lines like "I want you inside me" and "We get this guy laid we got no problem" swooshed by my precocious mind doing no discernable damage. It was only on catching the film on DVD when it was released that the movie was unlocked fully - also it was 2:35.1 which meant it even LOOKED like a different film.

I am glad Ghostbusters 3 will never be made. From what I heard it sounded worse than this anyway. Hellbent had a story that would have pushed back the real world side and just played on the fantastic. The guys develop goggles that can see another world running parallel to our own - a vision of Hell that sounded like it could have severe fright potential. Then I heard that the film would be a vehicle to have a new, younger group of Ghostbusters to take over. Younger? Bill Murray was 34 and he was a 7 year olds idol! In fact ALL my heroes were older and in their mid to late 30's so why do people think heroes have to be teens these days? Harrison Ford kicked ass in Indy 4 and Bruce Willis can still crush a head or two.

Ah Hollywood, will you ever learn.

And as you can see... I'm a lot happier!

2008-07-07T18:33:00.000-07:00

Never were truer words spoken in regard to the Joker. Despite the love and adoration placed on Batman, and inparticular Jack Nicholson's Joker, I never really "got it". Sure I am a Batman fan but, despite Michael Keaton's performance, I hated how "British" Gotham looked and how UK actors popped up with phony american accents. Robert Wuhl was so annoying and Kim Basinger... well she was my teenage masturbatory aid so all is forgiven.

But the Joker? The make-up looked ridiculous, his acting was dire and his "wacky" performance was as forced as his waistline. See I remember the joker being thin and so always believed the greatest actor to play him would be Richard E Grant.

How wrong was I? Having seen the first 5 minutes that have been floating around, already I cannot see any other person inhabiting the Joker as Heath Ledger. I've never liked Heath in film except Brokeback Mountain and so I held little hope for The Dark Knight. Now I am as giddy as a little boy discovering his first Kim Basinger sex scene... ahem.

In Defence Of Dross #1 - The Happening

2008-07-07T17:53:00.000-07:00

I have a sickness. I like movies other people deem terrible, hence In Defence Of Dross where I stand up for those movies people would rather rectally breach.

M. Night Shyamalan was once a god to me. Sixth Sense was suberbly crafted storytelling - a horror movie that was really a romantic tragedy. It will forever be remembered for it's twist ending but I guessed the day before I saw it what the ending was and so I was just caught up in the majesty of the film. He was compared to Hitchcock and Spielberg but he will always be "Night" to me. A genius.

Then followed by Unbreakable. A mystery that was really a Superhero origin story. Of all his films I would love to see a sequel to this one. The story of David Dunn still must continue and who knows what real world monsters he could take down? Then came Signs, an epic story of Alien invasion that is really a treatise on faith. One of the most amazing films and an amazing performance by Gibson. And that is Shyamalan's real strength. His dialogue can be too quirky and his films quite slow paced but he gets a performance out of actors you haven't seen too much depth to previously. Bruce Willis was a smug action hero as was Mel Gibson until suddenly they were acting... WITH A VENGEANCE!

Sadly, all good things etc. The Village was a fail immediately. Knowing Night cameos in all his films how would he pull one off in a movie with a totally white cast... unless it's actually present day? Twist blown and the film didn't hold up anyway. Bryce Dallas Howard may be a pretty hot Gwen Stacy but in everything else she gives me the shivers. Lady In The Water was something different and is saved by Paul Giamatti's performance but seriously although I liked it I couldn't tell you one thing about it now. Except something about Grass Dogs... I dunno.

So I was quite pleased to see the trailer for The Happening looking like it was Night doing what he does best. Providing a huge mystery then yanking the rug out from under you. Knowing I probably wouldn't get round to it at the cinema sucked and so I read all the online reviews... and they were savage! Nobody posted one redeeming feature and a friend of mine tore it a new one when she told me about the film. Two words jumped out from most reviews - "Killer Trees" - a bad, bad sign. Plus I hate Mark Whalberg, who told him to become an actor anyway? Clive Owen's agent?

So I sat back to finally watch it and... well, 30 minutes of the film had passed and I found myself liking Whalberg's performance. The beautiful Zooey Deschanel was on wide eyed perfection form again and John Leguizamo (forever Luigi in Super Mario Bros) was fantastic. I genuinely began caring about them as characters (another Night staple - slow build everything so you really get to know the people) and became concerned at who would survive. Plus the Killer Trees aspect was so well done - a toxin in the wind doing for a light breeze what Hitchcock did for showers.

The suicides were quite unsettling, panning from a row of ladders up to the people that had hung themselves from them was a kicker. For a guy who isn't easily shocked or scared this film put me through my paces. It was tense for the most part, my heart trying to force itself out of my chest for the majority of the flick, and sweet in others. The relationship between Marky Mark and Zooey was well crafted and their relationship reblossoming was a sweet sight to see in the midst of all the horror.

My one and only gripe against this film was the most pointless piece of product placement imaginable - an old lady shows Marky a video her friend sent her of a suicide. They gather round her IPHONE! She's not the type who would have run out to get one of those extortionate beauties so why didn't they just cast a younger woman to make the situation a little more believable?

Best part of the film: Mr Funky Bunch making up a story to try to get back at his wife for having dinner with another guy. Or is it the scene where he tries to bargain with a tree in a house to grant him and his family safe passage? The scene almost made me groan until he realised the tree was plastic - INSTANT COMEDY GOLD!

All in all I recommend The Happening highly. Just watch with an open mind and appreciate the fun. Honestly, I just want ONE other bloody person on the planet to agree with me on it!?

The Defence rests...

Until next time.
Next Defence: Bullseye!