Walking Dead

barricadeCome gather ’round people, wherever you roam,

And help build a barricade ’round your new home,

For the hoards of undead, they have finally shown,

And their numbers are steadily gainin’.

If they catch you they’ll empty your cranial dome,

For the ghouls, they are a-brainin’!

Everybody!

Come writers, producers, who kill with your pen,

And pile up the bodies of all Rick Grimes’ friends.

But remember the pile must start moving again,

To become novice zombies in trainin’.

Thus the cast doubles face time while eating fake skin,

And the ghouls they are a-brainin’!

 

Senators, Congressmen, please yield the floor,senators congressmen

And prepare to be spattered with CGI gore.

Your elitist debates were of interest before,

But irrelevant now that blood’s rainin’.

All civil discussion is out of the door

While the ghouls, they are a-brainin’!

 

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land;food tin cans

Stock-pile fresh water and food in tin cans.

Your daughters and sons smell like honey-glazed ham

To a corpse who is rapidly agin’.

Get an ax and prepare to remove undead hands,

For the ghouls, they are a-brainin’.

 

Wake up form your nightmares, back into the fray.penny dead

Each day is a new game of Russian roulette.

For the scythe of the Reaper is ever in play,

And there’s no tellin’ yet who it’s namin’

To the staggering droves in all states of decay,

And the ghouls, they are a-brainin’.

 

Vampires, werewolves, please put it away.vamp zombie

Your menacing ways are officially pase.

Make way for the shuffling undead of today,

And retire with no more complainin’.

Move over and get used to sharing the prey,

For the ghouls, they are a-brainin’!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
LEAVE A COMMENT

Noah

Noah posterEveryone seems to have an opinion about Noah. Some say it’s a fresh and creative, yet appropriate, adaptation of the celebrated story.  Others say it borders on blasphemy. Having seen the film, I can say that one thing it is definitely not is blasphemous.

Which is good, I suppose. But just because a movie isn’t blasphemous doesn’t mean that it’s good. The sad thing is, this movie showed so much potential. You can tell that Director Darren Aronofsky and writer Ari Handel studied their Bibles while writing the script. There is an abundance of creative interpretations, such as rock monsters as the Nephalim and ice age animals boarding the ark, beautiful images, such as stars visible in the daytime sky (which may have been a reality in the pre-flood atmosphere), and some truly touching subplots. The best of these is the one in which Noah’s family rescues a girl named Ila from a massacre and raises her as their own. Years later, Ila (Emma Watson) and Shem (Douglas Booth), Noah’s eldest son, are in love. However, due to a sword wound, Ila can’t have children.  As the ark is being built, she wrestles with her inability to repopulate the earth at this crucial time, and wonders why she has a place on the ark. There is a beautiful scene in which Noah (Russell Crow) comforts her, and the crowning moment comes when Noah’s grandfather, Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins) “blesses” her and takes away her sterility, after which she runs into Shem’s arms.

Film Bible Blockbusters

“You’re dressed strangely. Are you one of the watchers?”

There are a few problems early on. For instance, Noah gets the idea that the purpose of the ark is to save the animals because “they still live as they did in the garden,” despite the fact that animals routinely tear each other limb from limb. The movie pushes the idea that Noah and his family are vegetarians, and that that is part of their righteousness, yet Noah thinks nothing of hacking down human beings at several points in the movie. It’s very unlikely that the real Noah was a vegetarian, given that God told him to bring extra animals onto the ark for food, (Gen. 7:2) and that Abel had been sacrificing animals to God nine generations earlier. (Gen. 4:4, 5) But that’s okay. I can forgive some Ferngully-esque nonsense for an otherwise good movie.

Most of the way through, I was enjoying this movie, problems notwithstanding. My hopes reached their highest about midway, when Noah ventures into a camp where Tubal-Cain, the villain, is building an army, hoping to find wives for Ham (Logan Lerman) and Japheth (Leo Carroll). There he sees the extent of human depravity, witnessing infanticide, cannibalism, rape, child slavery, and *gasp!* meat-eating.  Aronofsky and Handel had opened the movie with a visual retelling of man’s fall into sin, and were even brave enough to use the word “sin” as the explanation of what’s wrong with our world. I was impressed. Now I saw this graphic depiction of sin’s effects (It’s amazing this movie didn’t get an R rating). Noah is watching a man commit a sin, and suddenly, the man’s face becomes his own. This is immediately followed by a vision of the snake in the garden. “Wow,” I thought. “Are they really going to go there? Are they really going to point to the Gospel with this movie?”

Noah snakes

Indiana Jones would not have lasted on the ark. Those aren’t tree trunks.

After all, the flood narrative is one of the four pivotal stories in the Bible, the first being the story of how man disobeyed God and brought suffering into a perfect world. The second is the flood story, in which God destroyed all of humanity except one righteous family in order to start the world over. And it worked, for awhile. But as we saw in the above scene, sin is inborn in every human being, and it soon resurfaced. This lead to the third pivotal story, in which God selected a nation, Israel, for himself, and gave them the Law, instructing them on how to live like righteous people. And it worked, for awhile. But the Law is powerless to bring life or renewal; it can only bring death. Sinful Man cannot keep it. Thus, there was a need for the fourth pivotal story, the Gospel. Because we could not keep the law, it was necessary for God to become a man two thousand years ago, and to live a perfect life, keeping the Law for us, pay the penalty we could not pay, dying a death more horrible that you or I can really imagine, and conquer death, rising from the grave. It is by this that “a multitude no one can count” (Rev. 7:9, 10) will be restored to their pre-fall glory, and that there will be a new heaven and a new earth.

But that’s all pretty heavy for a Hollywood movie.

Noah returns to his family, still working on the ark, and callously reports “There will be no wives!” and orders his family to get back to work. Noah tells Naameh, his wife (Jennifer Connelly) that evil is present in all of them, sympathetic and unsympathetic characters alike. As proof of this, he asks her “is there anything you would not do for your sons, good or bad? We would both choose to kill for our sons.” Of course, Noah has previously thought little of killing men for less than his sons, so I’m not sure why it’s such a shocking revelation to him now. We eventually learn that Noah has concluded humanity must be snuffed out so that the animals will be left in peace, but we’ll get to that later.

Methusela

Anthony Hopkins does well as tender patriarch Methusela, but there’s still something creepy about hearing Hannibal Lecter’s voice say to children “come closer.”

Ham, who looks to be about 14, cannot except this and runs toward the camp to find himself a wife. He eventually stumbles into a ditch full of bodies, where he finds a girl about his age named Na’el (Madison Davenport), who is terrified of him and swings a rock at him to drive him off. Given Ham’s age, and the urgency of the situation, I half expected to see him physically overpower her, then drag her by her hair back to the ark. However, we are treated to a couple of surprisingly moving scenes, in which Ham feeds Na’el and comforts her in the ditch, as she refuses to leave her dead family. Only when the rain begins to fall does he insist she come with him. The two of them run through the woods to the ark, not far ahead of Tubal-Cain’s advancing army. Na’el becomes caught in a leg trap set for an animal. Ham can’t pry it open, but he refuses to leave her. Until Noah shows up. Our hero pries the two screaming children apart and drags Ham away. We then get a cringe-inducing shot of Na’el reaching after them, before she is trampled to death by the army.

Watching this movie is a bit like watching The Passion of the Christ, or a Michael Bay movie, in that you get the sense that you are being punished for something, but you don’t know what. It’s like every moment is calculated to stick a knife in you and twist it, and the bombardment of violence, misery and heartbreak begins to feel like clubs hitting your head from all directions, and you want to shout “Make it stop! Whatever I did, I’m sorry!”

Noah and Ham reach the ark, and there is a pretty awesome battle scene between Tubal-Cain’s army and the rock giants, after which, the world gets swamped and Noah’s family hunkers in the ark. This is the point where the movie plunges irretrievably downhill. Noah, still believing Ila to be sterile, explains to everyone that they will be the last people to live on the earth; there will be no reproduction. That way humans will not “ruin the garden” again. A few days later, Ila becomes pregnant. For some reason, she, Shem and Naameh are stupid enough not only to tell Noah, but tell him immediately, when he’s obviously working through some issues. Noah throws a tantrum, pleads with God (it’s unclear if he gets a response) and finally announces that if Ila’s baby is a girl (who could mature into a mother), she will be cut down at the moment of her birth. The last act of this film is absolute agony to sit through, as it follows nine months of screaming and yelling about this in the confines of the ark. I will say one thing for this movie, the cast does a fantastic job with what they have to work with. You have to wonder what they must have been thinking, belting out the lines of such a contrived and sadistic script. There are no words to describe how bad it all is. I spent the last act asking “Why, Aronofsky, why this?” First, there’s no support for it in Scripture. God expressly told Noah to build the ark to insure that earth would be repopulated with men as well as animals, and after the flood, explicitly gave men permission to eat animals (if he hadn’t already). (Gen. 9:1-3)

s-NOAHS-ARK-large300

Darren Aronofsky is coming! All who wish to avoid embarrassment, into the ark!

Second, even if you ignore Scripture, it makes no sense. Why would Noah leap so quickly to such an extreme conclusion? There’s nothing in the film to suggest God has told him man must die out. And even if he does kill Ila’s baby, what’s to stop Ila and Shem from running away after the flood and having more babies? They’ve got the whole globe to choose from. And if Naameh wants her other sons to have children badly enough (and she clearly does), she may well copulate with them herself. Don’t look at me like that, it’s been done. Desperate times call for creepy measures. To accomplish his ends, Noah would have to kill everybody.

Third, it’s not as if this movie doesn’t shove enough horror and suffering in our faces (as it must). There is another side to the flood story. And it was taking shape in the first act. Noah’s relationship with his sons. Methusela’s tenderness with his great-grandchildren. Naameh’s adoptive care of Ila. Amid the wickedness of the world, this movie started with a beautiful depiction of familial and adoptive love. And that was exactly what God was trying to save when he told Noah to build the ark. (Gen. 7:1) God knew better than Noah that Man was inherently sinful. (Gen. 8:21) He was still giving Man a chance to start over.

But the touching story from the first act is out the window now. Ila gives birth to twin baby girls. Naameh comments that “He (God) sent us what we needed.” So … Ham and Japheth are supposed to marry their nieces? And very young nieces at that? I know I said desperate times, creepy measures, but why do we need this in the story? Considering the fact that Noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood (Gen. 7:6), (Shem was 98) his sons were most likely grown men, with grown women already at their sides. Why, Aronofsky, why? This leads up to what is supposed to be the climactic moment, when Noah has his dagger raised over Ila’s twin daughters, and — big surprise – he can’t bring himself to do it. The ark runs aground, the waters go down, and they start to rebuild. There is a scene where, for no clear reason, Ham packs up and walks away from the rest, implicitly never to return — so what was even the point of the twin baby girls?

But what about that bold and visceral depiction of the sinfulness of man? Noah is, after all, correct that evil is just as present in him and in his family as in Tubal-Cain, and that killing 99% of humanity will not end sin. Is this film going to at least hint at the coming of Christ? Noah and Ila sit on a beach. Ila says “The choice (of whether to kill her children) was put in your hands for a reason. He showed you the wickedness of Man and knew you would not look away. But as you looked, you also saw goodness.” So, no such luck on the Gospel. We went through all that agony just to hear one more canned Hollywood speech about faith in … goodness, I guess. Whatever that is. We then see Noah giving his blessing to his wife, two sons, daughter in law and two granddaughters, telling them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and we’re right back in creepy town, but at least the movie’s over.

I could have forgiven a movie that didn’t accurately depict the events in Scripture. I could have forgiven a movie that watered down the message in Scripture. I could have forgiven a movie that was just another piece of mindless Hollywood tripe. Hell, even a blasphemous movie would have been less painful to sit through than this. The worst part is, this was on track to be one of the greatest movies ever made. The talent was there. The creativity was there. The visuals were there. The source matter was certainly there. A full-budget rendering of the flood story was long overdue, and I was looking forward to a thorough exploration of the pre-flood world, and some awesome 2012-esque world destruction scenes. Instead of that, I had to sit through the manufactured misery of the most dysfunctional family on earth (literally). While Noah isn’t the worst movie I’ve ever seen, it may be the biggest disappointment of my film-watching life.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
1 COMMENT

The 5 Most Underrated Movies of All Time

A few weeks ago, I published my article The 5 Most Overrated Movies of All TimeI received a lot of bile and gall from the public, which was expected, but I also received some positive feed back, including a number of comments asking what my most “underrated” movies of all time would be. Naturally, I set out to give the people what they wanted. However I ran into some complications. The first was that I had already spoken up to defend several underrated movies during my time at Walking Taco, and I thought to include these in a listicle would be redundant and crowd other movies off the list. I thought about making this a top 10 list instead of a top 5, but didn’t think many people would take time to read a list that long. I finally decided I would leave them off, and if people wanted to read my take on them, they could read my original reviews of movies like Van Helsing, The Village, and Spiderman 3. Second, I found that it’s very hard to gather data on how much a movie is hated, because those who like it, even if they are few, tend to be the ones talking about it and rating it online, thus inflating the scores of unpopular movies. Therefore, while in the last article I was able to juxtapose my rating of a movie against society’s rating to gauge just how overrated the movie was, this time I had to settle for a list of movies I wish people would stop hating on, ranked from worst at #5, to best at #1. Third, as I worked on this article I came to realize that I had committed myself, through time investment, to writing about mainstream movies, leaving no time or space for certain unsung classics, such as Luther or Amazing Grace. I was forced to accept the fact that doing justice to these movies would require another article altogether, so what I ended up with was a list of movies that are not exactly great (some are close), but that people need to stop hating on.

 

And now, by popular demand: the most underrated movies that I haven’t already written about:

 

daredevil poster#5 Daredevil (2003 Dir. Mark Steven Johnson)

Am I the only person alive who doesn’t hate Ben Affleck? Not that I would stand in line for his autograph, but the man is a competent actor, and with the type of looks he has, it’s not surprising he gets some heroic roles. Why fuss about it? He’s been in some good movies, and this is one of them.

Daredevil is one of the earlier movies put out by Marvel Studios, and it had to make its way in the days before superhero movies were automatically popular. It also had to tell the story of a marginally popular superhero, all while competing with an X-Men sequel released the same year. Granted the result wasn’t exactly Iron Man, but it still captured the passion of one man’s struggle against crime and injustice, amid the bleak and compelling scenery of Hell’s Kitchen.

If you’re someone who loves the Batman movies (any of them really) for their dark and gritty “reality,” then you should love Daredevil. Matt Murdoch (Affleck) fights criminals surrounded by poverty and blight in a city where corruption is the rule, not the exception. The body count is high for a superhero movie, and innocent bystanders drop like flies. Even our hero is not above killing a bad guy on occasion. And if you like dark humor, you have to love the scene where Bullseye (Colin Ferrell) is on the airplane.

The thing I love about the Daredevil legend is that Daredevil is the only superhero who is defined by whatorgan he can’t do. His power comes from his handicap – the blindness that was inflicted on him as a child. This accident also enhanced his other senses, and allowed him to discover his sonar-like hearing. He then used his enhanced senses to excel in the martial arts. Which leads to the other great thing about the legend: it’s a superhero story that could actually happen. This is much more compelling than stories like Thor or Ghost Rider, where whatever the director thinks would be cool happens.

I will say that this film has by far the stupidest portrayal of the legal world that I have ever seen. This would be more of a problem if it was a lawyer movie. But it’s a superhero movie. And as such, it appeals to that part of us that wants swift and terrible justice, without bureaucracy. Early in the movie, after a painfully brainless trial scene, a scumbag walks into a bar to celebrate beating a rape charge. He’s clinking glasses with his buddies, shouting “To the justice system!” when he sees a stranger in spandex sitting on one of the rafters. He shouts “What do you want?” The stranger replies “Justice!” and then proceeds to inflict catastrophic injuries on everyone in the bar. It’s impossible not to punch the air during that scene. Daredevil isn’t one of my favorite movies, but it’s one I enjoy from time to time. One more cool thing about it: just as the comic was one of the first to be released in Braille, this is one of very few movies where the producers bothered to include a narration track on the DVD so that blind fans would know what was happening.

crystal skull poster#4 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Chrystal Skull (2008, Dir. Stephen Spielberg)

Before you dismiss this one as a throwaway movie, lets take a short trip back in time. In 1989, audiences flooded into theaters to see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, as it joined Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and IJ and the Temple of Doom (1984) as the third installment in the Indy franchise. In the next year or two, it came out on video, and in either 1991 or 92 (I was in sixth grade) the McDonalds Corp. announced a deal: buy a certain kind of meal and get your choice of the Indy movies on video. McDonalds thought it would make people flock to their stores, and they were right. But the question on everyone’s mind was: which movie will be the most popular? Would the public prefer Raiders for its methodical, old-school approach to action scenes, its surprising ending or its fascinating power struggle between the heroic Indy, the civil yet ruthless Dr. Belloq, and Major Toht in his unfiltered malevolence? Or maybe they would go for Last Crusade for the touching, yet manly relationship between Indy and his dad, the delightful comedy of Marcus Brody and Sallah, and the thrilling tank scene? Nope! Everybody wanted to see an extra get his still-beating heart ripped out! McDonalds could not keep Temple of Doom on their shelves. I spent many a lunch hour listening to classmates talk about how they requested the movie, only to be given a voucher, which they took to another McDonalds, who was also out of the movie, whereupon they drove all over town, looking for the movie everybody wanted but couldn’t find. Some eventually settled for one of the other two, but some went to the next town over. So I know if you are any kind of Indy fan, despite the lazy writing, sub-par acting and really annoying female lead, you probably have a special place in your heart for Temple of Doom, as do I. With that in mind, I submit that, with all its problems, Chrystal Skull is better than Temple of Doom.

Some argue that Ford, at 63, was too old to make another action movie in 2007. Others say Indy, at 57, would be too old to fight in 1957. As far as Ford is concerned, Hollywood makeup and special effects pick up the slack just fine. For Indy’s part, he took at least one swig from the Holy Grail, so that out to buy him a decade or so. Anyway, nobody gets shot in the shoulder at point-blank range and then keeps fighting, even at 36, so why worry about it now? Some complain about Ford’s acting in Chrystal Skull. Frankly, Ford was never a gifted actor. If you need proof, check out the scene in Raiders where he talks to Belloq in the bar after he thinks he’s killed Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). He became a star because he had a tough-guy smirk that made both women and men fall in love with him (in different ways). Actually, one of Ford’s most comical failures came in K-19 the Widow Maker (2002), in which he tried desperately to break out of his American tough-guy image and establish himself as a real actor. It was pretty painful. In Chrystal Skull, he’s back to doing what he’s good at, punching out Nazis commies and smirking for the camera.

Then there’s Shia LaBeouf as Indy’s long-lost son, “Mutt.” LaBeouf was a largely untested actor at theindy and mutt time, and is probably the part of the movie people most love to hate. And I have to admit, he is one of the weakest links in this chain. Even so, he throws himself into a’50s greaser persona that lends a charm to the movie, and an entertaining element to his interaction with Indy, both before and after they know they’re related. Any problems with Mutt are smoothed over by the return of Karen Allen, looking as good as ever, as Marion. Watching the three of them argue may not be realistic, but it’s as amusing as any family sit-com out there, without distracting from the adventure. It’s certainly better than putting up with Willie and Short-Round in Temple of Doom.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of Crystal Skull was how well Cate Blanchett did as the villain, Irina Spalko. In the hands of a lesser director, this could have reeked of gimmickry, but Spielberg pulled it off nicely. There’s no apologetic exposition about why the leader of the bad guys is a woman. She just is, and it works. The movie departs from the Nazi’s rumored obsession with ancient powers to speculate about the Soviets’ obsession with weird science. Spalko, a former girlfriend of Stalin, is driven to uncover the secrets of the extra-terrestrials who planted the Crystal Skull on Earth. The scene in which she expounds on the Soviet dream of using alien technology to control American heads of state and “make your teachers teach the true version of history” is pretty chilling. Blanchett fits in with the boys just fine, keeping  team of elite Russian fighters in line, squeezing information out of captives, and sexually insulting Mutt while she fences him on a moving vehicle. And Spielberg makes it all seem natural.

While this film never could have been another Last Crusade, it gave us something we had despaired of ever having: one more Indy adventure. And one blazing fresh turf, as Indy is hacking his way through the ruins of Meso-america for the first time. It has everything we love about Indiana Jones: archaeological puzzles to crack, bull whip stunts, fist fights the good guy wins, booby traps popping out of ancient walls, and a hair-raising encounter with an army of flesh-eating ants. Don’t hate this movie. Thank it. And please ignore those who complain about “inaccuracies.” Nobody loved Raiders because it was a historical documentary.

noe vs. smith#3 The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions (2003, Dir. Andy and Larry Wachowski)

You can’t win making a sequel to The Matrix (except financially, of course). It took the world by storm, becoming the instant favorite of millions on millions, and practically became its own genre. This was not simply because it was so good (which it was), but also because it was like nothing else anyone alive at the time had seen. With a limited budget for promotions, the film came out of nowhere and changed the way we thought about movies – and our lives. It also spawned some ridiculous philosophical movements. Most of those who saw it went away scratching their heads, asking “how do I know what I think I know?” Of course they also went away riding a massive adrenaline rush, feeling inspired by the story, and begging for a sequel. But what should the sequel(s) do? Part I revealed our day-in-day-out world to be an illusion created by computers and gave us a glimpse of the “real” world in which a remnant of humanity fights a war against sentient machines. Some said the sequels should more fully explore that world. Others said they should try for a double head trip, and reveal that this new world is also an illusion. No matter what directors Andy and Larry Wachowski did, they were going to alienate a lot of people. The Matrix sequels were doomed to be hated from the beginning. With that said, I submit that the Wachowskis still turned in the best Part II they could humanly have turned in, and a Part III that’s still not half bad.

Conceptually, The Matrix was a work of genius. It created a world where all the ridiculous stunts we see in Hollywood become totally plausible. Part II capitalized on that perfectly. As an action blowout, Part I wasn’t bad, but Part II takes things to an entirely new level. I’ve often thought of Part II as a “CD movie,” because I don’t usually watch it all the way through. Rather I’m more likely to skip around and watch all my favorite scenes, and watch a couple of them over and over, much like one would listen to a CD. From Neo’s first fight with the three upgrades to the highway explosion, the action never lets up. I love how we get a dazzling five-on-one fight between Neo and the Merovingian’s henchmen, and just when we think things are about to slow down, we join Morpheus, Trinity and the Keymaker, speeding through the streets with two more henchmen on their tail, and now the Agents are involved as well. This sequence has everything, too: gun fighting, knife fighting, sword fighting, and high-speed driving/wrecking/flipping. We get both high-jumping martial arts on the top of a semi-trailer and hand-to-hand inside the close quarters of a vehicle where seatbelts are used as weapons. And we get Morpheus taking out an SUV with a samurai sword. Beyond awesome.

matrixreloaded-reeves-chou

It doesn’t slack off in the head trip department, either. It tends to shift from the question of “what is real?” to the question of whether choice is an illusion. The Oracle and the Merovingian represent two schools of thought on the subject, the Oracle urging the heroes to understand their already-made choices, while the Merovingian insists causality is the only constant. Neo’s conversation with the Oracle will likely have you scratching your head. This is immediately followed by yet another awesome action sequence; Neo’s fight with a army of Agent Smiths. Ah, Smith; the great Hugo Weaving truly chews the scenery in this roll. Weaving as Smith is probably the best part of the trilogy …

Except maybe Ian Bliss as Smith in Revolutions. Smith catches Bane (Bliss) inside the Matrix and turns him into a clone of himself. Bane then reenters his body in the real world, but is “possessed” by the Smith program. Unfortunately, Weaving can’t portray him. But Bliss did his homework and turns in a performance worthy of Weaving as Bane confronts Neo and Trinity. He should have gotten an Oscar.

When this one was first out, the main complaint everyone seemed to have was “not enough fighting.” In fact, Part III has as much fighting as Part I, and almost as much as Part II. The main difference is that now the fighting is happening in the real world instead of the Matrix. Admittedly, this is less interesting. But it still represents a faithful continuation of the story. And if nothing else, Neo’s final battle with Smith is still awesome.

revolutions neo

Part III doesn’t have a terribly satisfying ending. The Matrix is never destroyed and the machine army is not defeated. In fact, our hero sacrifices himself to save the Matrix from Smith, thereby brokering a peace between the machines and the humans. There is even an acknowledgement that this new peace will last only “as long as it can.” I can understand why people don’t like this ending. But to be fair, you have to give it credit for taking a risk and doing something unexpected. Not only that, but you might remember certain lines from the previous movies: “If the war was over tomorrow, Zion is where the party would be.” And “If tomorrow the war could be over, isn’t that worth fighting for?” At the end of Part III, they have what they were fighting for. The war is over. The machines leave them in peace, at least for the foreseeable future. Ultimately, the Matrix trilogy delivered what it promised. If people were expecting more, that’s not its fault.

Reloaded:

Revolutions:

superman carries planet#2 Superman Returns (2006 Dir. Bryan Singer)

I’ve spent years trying to understand how so many people can hate this movie. After a lot of interviews, research and thought, I’ve concluded that it all boils down to good old fashioned ignorant prejudice. Prejudice first against Superman. Ever since Tim Burton gave us the mixed blessing of Batman in 1989, DC and Marvel alike have tried to out-do each other in dark and nasty superhero stories. Despite the fact that, as Simon R. astutely put it, Batman itself was loaded with cheese, the public has adopted the attitude that a realistic or “adult” movie always equals a bleak, nasty, cynical movie, and superhero movies have become increasingly sick ever since. It just isn’t cool anymore to cheer for a hero who believes in “truth justice and the American way,” and who won’t kill or lie.

Prejudice second against anything but the Christopher Reeve version of Superman. There are still some who love Superman, but they won’t tolerate the existence of anything new or different. I wasn’t around for the debuts of the beloved Superman the Movie and Superman II, which I think gives me a valuable perspective. A good illustration of society’s flawed thinking about Superman is found in a video by the Nostalgia Critic, in which he counts down the Top 11 Dumbest Superman Moments. At the beginning, he shows the posters for the five movies in existence at the time (Man of Steele wasn’t made yet) and comments “…I love the Superman movies … well, most of them … some of them … two of them.” And of course, Returns is the first one he crosses off the list, and the two left standing are Superman and Superman II. And yet, if you watch the list, only one of his least favorite moments – number 11 in fact – is from Returns. And that is simply the casting choice of Returns. The ten worst are all from the Reeve movies, including those first two. See what I mean? It’s just prejudice.

Having watched the first Superman movies, I can see why people like them, but don’t see why they should set the standard. Reeve played the role well enough, but I see no reason to elevate him to Bella Lugosi status. There have been several other good Supermen, and Brandon Routh is one of them. He most distinguishes himself in the way he shows the emotional vulnerability of the indestructible symbol of protection. There’s none of Reeve’s stomping around, whining to his mother about how he loves Lois here. Routh communicates everything with a look, a grimace, a sigh. And he isn’t letting it out – after all the world’s protector never could. But we see it peaking out all the same. One of the most memorable moments of Returns is when Clark and Lois both bend over to pick up Lois’ purse, and Clark’s glasses fall off. Lois is still gathering the contents of her purse, and Clark has glasses in hand. Without a word spoken, we see the epic struggle inside him; one that makes fighting Doomsday look easy. And we see the pain in his face when he puts the glasses back on.

I have to admit, Kate Bosworth doesn’t shine as much as Lois Lane, and she’s certainly not as memorableSuperman Returns Brandon Routh Kate Bosworth-500553 as Margot Kidder. But she never drops the ball, and turns in a solid performance, including generating some real chemistry with a child actor (Tristan Leabu as her son, Jason White), which is not easy. While Reeve might hold his own against Routh and Kidder beats Bosworth, Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor is erased by Kevin Spacey. Hackman did his best, but was never quite right for the part. Spacey can play almost any role (L.A. Confidential, The Usual Suspects, House of Cards …) and is one of very few Hollywood actors who actually avoids getting extra face time (e.g. in gossip magazines) and has accumulated his considerable fame and wealth through (get this) being a good actor. He could probably play Shaft convincingly if he really worked at it. Unsurprisingly, he knocks Lex Luthor out of the park.

It doesn’t hurt that Spacey gets to play one of the most interesting characters in the history of fiction. Anybody who loves Batman should love Superman, if only for Lex Luthor. He is, in many ways, Bruce Wayne’s dark twin; a mental marvel, and a proven genius. In better shape than most people physically, endlessly creative and endlessly driven. You wouldn’t think any ordinary man could stand up to Superman, yet Luthor does. Oh, he’s definitely a bad guy. There’s no more of a conscience in him than there is in the Joker. But he’s a bad guy of penetrating insight and almost inspiring vision. Where the Joker destroys, Lex is driven to create. He’s an easy guy to hate, just because of his certainty of his superiority to everyone, including Superman, yet there are moments where you have to wonder if he’s wrong.

Superman Returns is the first Superman movie that can be taken seriously. The Reeve movies have their charms but they all bear as much resemblance to a Three Stooges sketch as to an actual movie. Take for example the scene in Superman where Lex, a bubble-headed groupie, and a bumbling fatty actually steal nuclear missile codes from a platoon of trained military men by having the groupie lie in the road, pretending to be hurt and unconscious, with no blood or other makeup. This distracts the entire platoon long enough for the fatty to sneak aboard a truck and punch in a series of computer codes that he has written on his arm. But then the bad guys have to go back and do it again, because his arm wasn’t long enough. And it still works! Maybe our government’s best soldiers and computers were that dumb in 1978, but I doubt it.

Returns has much tighter story. Unlike some movies, where a superhero’s appearance just happens to coincide with an upswing in crime and disasters, everything here is tied together. How does Lex Luthor obtain power that threatens the world? He remembers where the Fortress of Solitude is from when he was there in Superman II. He’s able to find it, and find the crystals that built it, which came with Superman in the ship that brought him. He knows he can use these crystals to build a whole new world – on top of ours. Ergo, both the hero and the threat are Kryptonian in origin. In fact, the need for Superman’s first heroics upon his return is caused by Lex’s experiment with one of the crystals. This is one of the most awesome scenes in cinematic history. A Boeing 777 is coupled to a space shuttle as an experiment. A micro-burst sent out by the Kryptonian crystal messes up the shuttle’s computer system, which results in it trying to “blast off” while it’s still coupled to the plane, endangering the lives of everyone on both vehicles. Superman races to the rescue, passing two fighter jets as if they were standing still. I won’t spoil details for anyone who hasn’t seen it, but seeing Superman trying to pull the 777 out of free-fall is worth the price of the ticket by itself. The movie also gives us plenty of iconic images, like the ones you see here.

superman-returns-wing

Finally, this movie delivers a fantastic score, which makes excellent use of the beloved Superman theme, and delivers some other great pieces to boot, most notably the one playing as Luthor’s goons fire a Kryptonite crystal into the ocean. It’s a shame Routh didn’t get to do any more Superman movies. I hope he’s doing well, wherever he is, as a I’ve heard playing Superman tends to be the kiss of death for an actor’s career. I have to admit, a little bit of Superman goes a long way. But Superman Returns remains the best Superman movie ever made, and one of the best superhero movies, period.

 

 

And the most underrated movie of all time:

 

 

eragon poster#1 Eragon (2006 Dir. Stefan Fangmeier)

 I was stunned when I saw this film had an approval rating of just over 10% on rottentomatoes.com. I’m not sure why people hate this movie. Maybe fans of the book were angry about things that were changed. Not having read the book, I can’t say. Maybe it’s just because, like every fantasy epic in the last ten years, it had the misfortune to be compared to Lord of the Rings. That’s hardly fair, when you think about it. Maybe the youthful cast turned people against it, but I’d have to say they do pretty well, and the more seasoned cast members do a good job of picking up the slack when necessary. I do know that it took a lot of heat for being derivative of LOTR and Star Wars. Again, this is hardly fair, considering that both of those tales were derived from centuries of stories themselves, and some of the modern world’s most beloved stories (Highlander, Harry Potter, The Matrix) are essentially the same story as Star Wars.

And, yeah, Eragon is too. But if an archetype works, why mess with it? It’s enough to do a good job of retelling it, and Eragon does just that. Our story begins in a dark age of the fictional land of Alagaesia. People’s meager possessions are confiscated at will and young men are dragged off to fight, and usually die, in wars no one cares about. Destitution and misery reign. We learn that in a prior age, the peace was kept by the Jedi Dragon Riders, but they became arrogant and began to fight over power. An evil Dragon Rider named Galbatorix (John Malkovich) was able to trick them into fighting each other, and finally killed them all, becoming the last Dragon Rider and amassing all the power to himself. Galbatorix now rules Alagaesia with an iron fist. The only resistance left is the Varden, a group of freedom fighters hiding in the mountains.

Amid all this, in a seemingly insignificant corner of the galaxy Alagaeisa, we meet a humble farm boy being raised by his uncle. His name is Luke Skywalker Eragon (Ed Speelers, at age 17). We spend a few scenes getting to know him, his cousin (Chris Egan) and his Uncle (Alun Armstrong). Poor Alun Armstrong; he never seems to get a good role. He always plays a wormy guy we’re supposed to hate, and he always dies horribly (take Braveheart, for instance). But in this film, he actually gets to play a strong, honorable character. Garrow has sacrificed much to raise the boy his sister abandoned, and provides him with a caring father figure. At least until he dies horribly (sorry, Alun). Eragon finds a dragon egg while hunting, and, sensing the presence of its destined rider, the dragon hatches. Eragon raises her in secret for awhile and eventually, her magic causes her to change from half-grown to full-grown in a few minutes. Galbatorix, sensing the magic, dispatches the Ra’zac (some truly scary assassins), who find the farm, and join the long list of movie characters who have killed Alun Armstrong. Eragon is saved by Saphira (the dragon) flying away with him. However, she’s still not old enough to carry a load very long.

Warning: spoilers ahead.

They are joined in flight (as in running away; not as in flying) by Brom (Jeremy Irons), a former Dragon Rider, who commits to training Eragon to fulfill his destiny, and getting him to the Varden’s hideout. The chemistry between these three characters is superb. Speelers is a bit green to be carrying the lead in an epic, but that actually translates well to the character. As Speelers is learning his way around the set, Eragon is learning the ropes as a dragon rider. This makes his fluctuations between fear and recklessness perfectly plausible. And where Speelers’ acting lacks, Irons’ more than compensates. Irons could carry almost any movie (except Dungeons and Dragons). His stage presence is endless and his voice commands respect. This is, after all, the voice that made Scar one of the most memorable villains of all time. He has played many types of rolls, but what he does best is play Obi Wan Kenobi; the grizzled, has-been warrior who mentors the hero. The student-mentor bonding in this story is some of the best I’ve seen, as we see Eragon grow from a foolish boy to a hero, and Brom change from the grumbling vagrant that he is at the beginning, to the begrudging teacher of Eragon, to a father figure sacrificing his life for him. Saphira adds to, rather than distracts from, this dynamic. She seems to have some kind of inborn knowledge, but she’s still on a learning curve of her own. It would have been tempting to make her an unstoppable juggernaut of claws and teeth, but the filmmakers gave her significant limits. She’s too young to breath fire, and can’t fly very well with more than one on her back. Her CGI face conveys plenty of emotion, making her vulnerable and relatable. She and Eragon can hear each other’s thoughts, which puts their communication on a separate track from that of Eragon and Brom. The bond between Dragons and their Riders is strong, and the choice to make Saphira female (Rachel Weisz puts her heart into the voice) was a good one, as the relationship seems almost like a marriage (without being creepy). As Eragon works to master the light saber sword and use The Force Elvish magic, Saphira tries to sustain her first flame. She growls at Brom when they first meet, but there is a very touching moment after he dies, in which Saphira, still unable to breath fire, works up enough heat to melt a pile of rocks around him, giving him a crystal casket, in which “time cannot ravage him.”

fire ball

The visuals aren’t perfect, but they’re there when it counts. There are moments throughout the film where you can see how a few more millions of dollars could have made the makeup a bit more seamless, the camera work a bit more fluid, or the battle sequences a bit more gripping. At the end of the day, it must be acknowledged that Eragon is not LOTR. But there is at least one event in which it absolutely leaves LOTR in the dust: spectacular flying sequences. I was on the edge of my seat when Eragon was learning to ride Saphira. Then at the end, the two are about to ride into battle against Galbatorix’ forces. Saphira, for the first time, spews a monstrous fire ball, and Eragon shouts “Into the sky, to win or die!” You can shout “derivative,” you can shout “cliché,” I shouted “F—k, yeah!” (inwardly) at that moment, and the aerial battle that follows is truly awesome. Afterward, when it looks like Saphira might not make it, it’s impossible not to feel something.

The book was actually the first in a tetrilogy, and this film leaves its end open for a sequel. Unfortunately, it’s been eight years now, and after the drubbing this film got from the fans, I don’t think one is coming. If you haven’t seen this movie, you owe it to yourself to check it out.

So those are my thoughts. I hope you enjoyed them. Before you start sending me hate mail, why not rent a few of these movies and give them a second chance? You might find you’ve been missing out on something.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
1 COMMENT

The 5 Most Overrated Movies of All Time

Since you’re on this site, you probably enjoy discussing movies. And like me, you’ve probably been frustrated by seeing a movie you couldn’t stand, only to find out everyone else loves it. Of course, since I’m taking down overrated movies here, you probably also love at least some of the movies in this article. So it’s important to remember that even a great movie is simply that — a movie. I don’t necessarily expect you to agree with me, as long as you consider my thoughts and enjoy the read, and perhaps leave a response. But if I can release a few people from their servitude to one of these movies, my work will not be in vain.

Without further ado, the most overrated movies of all time:

Glory poster#5 Glory (1989 Dir. Edward Zwick)

Okay, before I get a contract out on my life, I’m not saying Glory  is a bad  movie. I’m just saying it doesn’t deserve its five Oscar nominations, slough of other awards or the endless adulation it’s received. I know in our political and cultural climate, hardly anyone dares criticize such a movie, so for the first time ever, let’s take an honest look at Glory.

Colonel Robert Shaw (Matthew Broderick) is commissioned to lead the first Regiment of black soldiers in the U.S. Army. The sequences of training the regiment are far more Hollywood than history. For instance, there is a scene in which soldier Silas Trip (Denzel Washington) is caught deserting, and is to be flogged before the regiment. We are supposed to be shocked when Drill Sergant Mulcahy (John Finn) yanks Trip’s shirt down to reveal years’ worth of whip scares. Shaw actually starts crying when he sees this. Trip then stares unflinchingly at Shaw while he is flogged, as Shaw whimpers like a little girl.

This brings us to my indictment of Glory, and of those who praise it. It’s less about its quality than about the fact that people seem to think the film is making some kind of bold statement about the country’s history. But if a film wants to make a bold statement about history, it needs to get history right. Modern audiences are moved by the scene above. But Shaw would not have been. The thing people forget is that we are looking at the U.S. Army of the 1860s. White men in the army where routinely flogged for deserting, falling asleep on duty, or having an unkempt uniform. They were also accustomed to sleeping on the ground, eating maggoty bread and (get this) being shot. Shaw most likely had scars on his own back, and had certainly been grazed by a bullet at the Battle of Winchester.

The movie tries to deal with a lot of arguments and issues that would find no place in a military environment, especially if you want to tell a story of honor and glory. We hear a lot of infantile whining about military discipline, not only by new recruits, but by white officers we’re supposed to sympathize with. Then there’s the scene where Shaw informs the regiment that the Confederate Congress has issued a proclamation that any negro captured while fighting for the North will be executed. After he delivers the shocking news that if they go to war they might die, we’re supposed to be inspired when they are all still there the next day.

To be fair, Glory  certainly has some things going for it. It’s interesting and refreshing to see a full cast of black actors playing very different characters fighting together. Both black and white bring passion to their roles and there are some really powerful moments, especially the campfire the night before the climactic battle. Also, as race movies go, this one is a lot deeper than most. But for every great moment there’s another one that’s ruined by awkward acting or cheap cinematography, including, sadly, the crowning moment of an otherwise good climax.

The climax is the 54th’s doomed assault on Ft. Wagner on July 18, 1863. We see Shaw and Trip fatally shot at the foot of the fort’s walls. The remaining major characters, and a lot of extras, then storm the fort. The crescendo comes when Sgt. John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman), Major Cabot Forbes (Cary Elwes), Thomas Searl and Jupiter Sharts run up onto a ledge before they are killed by cannon fire. It’s all supposed to happen in a moment, because they died fighting. However, the camera focuses on them for well over a second, as they stand there awkwardly, posing for the camera. You can almost see Freeman thinking “Aw, yeah, I’m gonna get another great close up!” while you can see Elwes looking for Zwick, thinking “Do I tilt my gun up a little? Down a little?” And finally, even though we saw Washington shot through the chest at the bottom of the hill, we then see him running up behind everyone, craning his neck as if to say “I want to be in the picture, too!” Not only that, but the camera actually cuts away from this awkward pose to the cannons, and then back to the awkward pose for another second or so, before our heroes disappear in cannon smoke, making it truly laughable.

It makes a great still, but the moving version is pretty painful

It makes a great still, but the moving version is pretty painful

For better or worse, Glory  has had a huge impact on movies since. The black Union soldier has become to civil war movies what the explosion is to Michael Bay movies, even though, in reality, there were black men fighting for the South before there were black men fighting for the North (yeah, that’s right) and the role played by black Union soldiers in the war was actually very small. Glory  is a solid movie over all, and I own a copy that I enjoy watching from time to time. But come on. Five Oscars? Really?

Society’s rating (according to Rotten Tomatoes):

My rating:

 

Cars poster#4 Cars (2006 Dir. John Lasseter)

There isn’t much that can be said about this one, except that if it hadn’t been riding the coattails of Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, it wouldn’t have had nearly the success that it did. As Doug Walker put it, it seems more like a satire of a Pixar film than an actual Pixar film. Cars spawned an endless flood of toys, lunchboxes and kiddie toilet seats, as well as a handful of sequels, all to the tune of $10 billion in the first five years after it came out. And does anyone even remember what it was about? Don’t feel bad, I had to look it up myself.

The first reason this movie doesn’t work is the world it tries to create. Consider A Bug’s Life, which is similar in that it has an entirely non-human cast, in this case ants and other bugs. This works well, because bugs actually have their own existence, independent of humans, so it’s interesting to hear a story about what hopes, fears and conflicts bugs might have in their own world. Cars‘ world is populated with anthropomorphic machines, with no trace of human existence. But if there are no humans, where did all these machines come from? Did a submarine crawl out of the sea millions of years ago and magically grow wheels? Or was there some divine mechanic that took a side panel from the first daddy car and made the first mommy car, and told them to bump uglies and fill the earth? And if so, from whence did the babies come, mommy’s tail pipe? See the problem here?

Anthropomorphic vehicles have worked better in other movies, usually as a foil to a more serious plot, or as wisecracking sidekicks, such as the taxi in Roger Rabbit. It can be interesting to see a show where sentient vehicles interact with their owners, e.g. Nightrider, or interact with each other, talking about the jobs they do for  their owners. But machines exist only to serve a purpose. With no humans in Cars, the writers have to stretch their characters into emotional and organic roles that don’t make sense. For instance, near the beginning, Lightning McQueen is pursued by a police car. The police car’s motor back fires a few times. McQueen exclaims “he’s shooting at me! Why is he shooting at me?” A better question would be “how is he shooting at me?”

But let’s say we get past all this, and generously grant the film its ill-conceived premise, and just judge it by its own standards. It’s still not a a good movie. It’s not terrible, but it’s just a handful of overused cliches with nothing original. We start out with a self-absorbed, ambitious protagonist, McQueen, that we know is going to learn a lesson in the end. We then learn that he doesn’t have any friends. Through a misadventure, he finds himself a fish out of water in a small, forgotten town out of the interstate limelight. Some of the characters of this town are Rockwellian stereotypes, such as Doc, who is both the town judge and the town doctor. The rest are more recent stereotypes, like a hippie, a big city lawyer and a fairly racist Hispanic stereotype.

cars sugar

This movie is sugary enough to give a man diabetes.

We hear a lot of rhetoric about how small town poverty is better than big city wealth, which is always amusing coming from Hollywood producers. McQueen, who has learned the value of hard work during his trial, ultimately gets everything he wanted in the beginning anyway, but turns down millions of dollars to be “happy.” The story pushes the familiar idea that friendship and family are better than worldly success, but never believes in its own message enough to sell it. Significantly, none of the characters in this movie have any meaningful family connections. How could they, after all?

Even if Cars isn’t good, it is kind of cute, and I suppose that’s what sold so many products. If you like this movie, it doesn’t mean you’re an idiot. It just means you’re easily entertained.

Society’s rating:

My rating:

 

Avengers poster#3 The Avengers (2012 Dir. Joss Whedon)

The success of The Avengers is a powerful testament to the superiority of aggressive marketing over quality product. For some reason, American moviegoers made this film the highest-grossing film of 2012, probably the second most embarrassing choice by the American public in that year.

There is a video game series called Marvel Ultimate Alliance. The story of the game is an afterthought as an excuse to cram every single Marvel character in to the same game and have them go around beating up polygons. I’ve never found it that interesting, but it works okay as a game. The problem with Avengers is that it’s exactly the same thing, except we, the audience, don’t get to play.

Anytime you cram several superheroes into the same story you’re playing with fire. You’re mixing mythologies and there’s usually not enough time to develop all of them and create enough suspension of belief. For instance, why in the name of Odin can a hammer forged by the gods and imbued with the power of lightning and thunder not break (or even dent) Captain America’s shield? I don’t care if it was designed by Howard Stark. And even if we grant that the shield is indestructible, why is Cap’s arm not broken behind it? This might seem like a minor detail, but Avengers is full of questions like this, because the mythologies don’t gel. And because they don’t, we have to settle for a movie that is about like watching a video game. The B-movie “story” concerns a race of computer-generated aliens that invade New York City. Who are these guys? We don’t really know. Where do they come from? Who cares? What were the events that provoked their hostility with the Earth? If they can rip open a portal to NYC, what prevents them from attacking several points of Earth at once? And if they have such technology, why do they still need live mounts? None of these questions are ever bothered with, as these aliens are just cannon fodder for the heroes to show off their powers. The aliens are led by Loki, who has transitioned from being a poorly written prodigal son in Thor (first he hates Odin, then he loves Odin, then he throws himself down to the earth because Odin simply tells him “no”) to now being a flat-out cartoon villain, consumed with a drive to (what else?) take over the world.

Now, which one of these pictures is from Avengers ...

Now, which one of these pictures is from Avengers …

Marvel Studios also needs to learn that stone walls do not a prison make, nor rampant destruction an action sequence. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent rendering huge battle sequences for Avengers in which skyscrapers and aircraft carriers are laid waste, and the audience never breaks a sweat. In fact, the one action sequence in the movie that’s actually engaging is the one-on-one fight between Hawkeye and Black Widow, which involves no CGI, but only great choreography.

... and which one is from Man of Steel?

… and which one is from Man of Steel?

This summer, movie goers were treated to a similar movie, The Man of Steele, which was panned by critics and audiences alike. And not without reason. But the people who lapped up Avengers  never seemed to realize that Man of Steele  was the same movie (In fact, Google either one, and you’ll get lots of images from both). Avengers  throws constant superhuman fighting in your face with no rules of reality. Man of Steele  does the same thing. Avengers  spends most of its two hours blowing up trains and tearing skyscrapers to bits. Man of Steele  does the same thing. Avengers wastes precious little time on story or character development. Man of Steele  does the same thing. In fact, Man of Steele comes out the stronger, because

Is that gravel spray being raised by Clark or the Hulk? Who knows?

Is that gravel spray being raised by Clark or the Hulk? Who knows?

the director isn’t mediating between six stars and dividing up the face time. We at least get an interesting and moving expose of Clark’s relationship with his parents, and Michael Shannon is actually able to develop a compelling (if over-the-top) villain in General Zod. The only thing Avengers  brings to the table that Man of Steele  doesn’t is some great shots of Gwyneth Paltrow from behind and Scarlet Johansson from above. In fact, Amy Adams as Lois Lane spends most of her movie in a parka. But really, which of those two options is the mark of the superior film?

Society’s rating:

My rating:

 

Princess B poster#2 The Princess Bride (1987 Rob Reiner)

We now reach the hard-core portion of this list. Strong of heart, read on. I apologize if I shatter your childhood, but it’s high time that you knew 1) there is no Santa Clause, and 2) this movie sucks. The faithful reader may remember my review of The Grey, in which I commented that, at the end, I felt like an 18-year-old groupie who had been picked up by Director Joe Carnahan, only to find out in bed that Carnahan had this … “little problem.” My experience watching The Princess Bride was similar, except that I felt more like a chronically cheated-on wife, who has spent years going to counseling and forgiven her husband over and over and over again, because he has promised to take her on some romantic vacation to some exotic location, and then, when the time comes, he leaves her at the airport and goes off with his secretary.

From the start, we see a cheap movie. Cheap sets, cheap camera work, cheap actors. But it still shows signs of being a fun, campy fairy tale. After enduring the griping of a young, ailing Fred Savage about the story being read to him, we see the story of a girl named Buttercup (Robin Wright) falling in love with a farm boy named Wesley (Cary Elwes). Buttercup later hears that a ship carrying Wesley was taken by the Dread Pirate Roberts, who never takes prisoners, so she figures he’s dead. Five years later, she is betrothed to Prince Humperdinck (Chris Sarandon). However, she is kidnapped by three brigands and taken on a ship. At one point, she tries to escape by jumping overboard, and hears a strange noise. And here we have a good example of the crystalline dialogue we get to hear over and over in this film. The leader, Vizzini (Wallace Shawn) shouts out “You hear that, highness? Those are the shrieking eels! They always grow louder when they’re about to feast on human flesh!” Did they have a five-year-old write this? Vizzini also spends much of this part of the movie repeatedly shouting “inconceivable!” It gets old real fast. He also shouts lines like “Move the thing! And that other thing!

I’ll admit this part does a good job of creating mystery and suspense, as they find themselves being followed by a stranger who gains on them no matter what they do. After they scale the Cliffs of Insanity, Vizzini cuts the rope at the top, leaving the stranger clinging to the cliff side. He instructs his swordsman, Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin), to dispatch him once he reaches the top, while he and Fezzik (Andre the Giant) escape with Buttercup.

The stranger ascends, and we get the single awesome scene of the movie. And awesome it is! I have PB fightpersonally studied under Ted Katzoff, the Fencing Maestro who choreographed this scene. The man is a swordplay genius (not to mention one of precious few non-European Maestros). He has worked on films such as Hook and Outrageous Fortune, and I would expect nothing less than what he delivers in this scene. The swordsmanship displayed by both combatants is truly remarkable, being both technically proficient and exciting to watch. Each man starts out fencing with his left hand, and just when we think one of them is going to lose, he switches to his right! We get flips, dives, stair fencing, the whole nine yards. The whole movie should be like this. Alas …

The stranger bests Inigo, but knocks him out rather than killing him. He then goes on to somehow defeat Andre the Giant in a wrestling match that still somehow manages to be boring. Finally, he bests Vizzini in what is called a “battle of wits,” but is really just a contest to see whose ears start bleeding last from listening to Wallace Shawn’s incessant, nasal rambling. Thankfully, Shawn dies. Buttercup is now the stranger’s prisoner, and in a following scene, she learns that he is the pirate who killed her love. Eventually she pushes him down a hill. The camp meter shoots up here, from merit-badge-camp-out to Mt. Everest-base-camp. As he rolls down the hill, he shouts out a catch phrase that Wesley used to say to Buttercup. This is supposed to immediately clue Buttercup in that the stranger is actually Wesley. Upon realizing this, she throws herself down the hill for … some reason, and we have this long, stupid scene of them rolling down a hill, at the bottom of which they kiss.

About this time, we join Humperdinck and his right hand man, Count Rugen (Christopher Guest), at the head of a search party, examining the footprints from Inigo’s fight with Wesley. Two things take shape in this scene. First, we see that Humperdinck is able to analyse the fencing technique of both fighters from their tracks, implying that he is a skilled fighter and tracker himself. Second we learn that Humperdinck hired the brigands to kidnap and kill Buttercup, in order to frame a neighboring kingdom for it, to generate public support for a war. Humperdinck is beginning to show himself as a stereotypical fairy tale villain. And that’s a good thing because, as we all know, when people go to a fairy tale movie, they’re going to see sword fights. Yes, there’s also that “true love” thing, but there’s no point in having a true love if there’s no danger to save her from. That’s why good movies of this genre, such as Errol Flynn movies or Zorro movies, are packed with sword fights, each one more spectacular than the last, leading up to the climactic battle between the hero and the villain, which should blow us all away. Yes, it’s a formula, but there’s a reason it’s a formula. And hey! Reiner has already got Maestro Katzoff right there on set, and he has two sympathetic swordsmen, Wesley and Inigo, still alive after their fight. What’s more, we’ve learned of Inigo’s vendetta against Count Rugen for killing his father, so we also have two villainous swordsmen, with henchmen at their command. Perfect!

Make no mistake, while there have been some clever moments, up to this point, this has been by no means a good movie. We’ve seen ham-fisted acting, painful one-liners, and gaping plot holes. There’s been no explanation of why Humperdinck wants to go to war, or who with. For that matter, why was he trying to catch the brigands if he hired them? I’ve been overlooking all of this because there has got to be some more of that swashbuckling action before too long. I mean, it’s not like Reiner would actually put his one good fight scene in the first 20 minutes of the movie! Would he?

The boneheaded moments are coming faster now. As they walk through the Fire Swamp, Wesley tells  Buttercup the story of how he was, in fact, captured by Roberts, but Roberts took him on as a valet. Three years later, Roberts decided to retire, and so appointed Wesley to plunder in his place.

Wait a minute! Did I miss something here? This is our hero in this fairy tale? And he’s spent the last two years as a pirate, killing people by his own admission? Was he under some kind of coercion? Was he using his position to undermine Humperdinck’s oppression of the masses? Was he at least using his ill-gotten gains to provide for the less fortunate? If any of these things are true, we’re never given any indication. We’re just left to assume that Wesley has been raping and pillaging his way around Florin for two years because … his old boss said to. Worse yet, at the end of the movie, Wesley actually suggests to Inigo that Inigo take over raping and pillaging from him!

At least our primal couple are walking through a dark and dangerous swamp from which none have returned. What thrilling dangers and battles lay ahead? Will Wesley have to fight dragons? Trolls? Orcs? Will the adversity finally force Buttercup to find her inner strength so she can be of help? The tension is palpable as they push their way through vines and trees. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Wesley is pounced upon by a … rat? A freaking RAT! Granted it’s an unusually big rat; one might even say a rodent of unusual size, but it’s a freaking rat! In addition, it doesn’t look real at all. So we spend three minutes watching Buttercup cower in a corner while Wesley rolls around with a stuffed animal.

But that’s okay, because the climax is going to be awesome.

Miracle Max. Amusing, but too little, too late.

Miracle Max. Amusing, but too little, too late.

To make a long story short, they get out of the swamp and Humperdinck captures Wesley and sends him to the torture chamber, leading Buttercup to believe he has been released. Humperdinck eventually kills Wesley by sucking his life away. On the day that Humperdinck and Buttercup are to be married, Fezzik and Inigo break into the torture chamber and steal Wesley’s body. They obtain a pill which brings him back to life, but with temporary paralysis. The three break into the castle. Inigo has to fight four guards, but it’s over in about three seconds. He then confronts Rugen, who flees. Inigo gives chase, but Rugen is able to trick him by throwing a dagger into his gut. He recovers, however. This fight isn’t terrible, but it’s nothing compared to the first one. Inigo basically backs Rugen into a corner and skewers him after some dialogue.

But that’s okay, because we’re almost to the big fight between Wesley and Humperdinck!

Buttercup enters the bridal chamber, sick with grief after the wedding, and is about to kill herself, when she hears Wesley’s voice! She turns to see him lying on the bed. They kiss and he tells her she’s not married, because she didn’t say “I do,” and didn’t do “it.”

“A technicality that will shortly be remedied.” Ooh, boy! Our contrived, two dimensional villain stands in the doorway, sword in hand. Chills run up my spine. This is it! “But first, to the death!” Sounds good to me. “No!” Wesley says. “To the pain!” Um, okay. That sounds fine, as long as you guys fight.

Well, not just yet. First we have to listen to a long explanation of what “to the pain” means. Finally (finally!), Wesley rises to his feet and the fight is on! He raises his sword. Humperdinck counters by … dropping his sword?? Then sitting down and letting Buttercup tie him up? No!

No, dammit, no! Don’t do this to me!

I forgave the whiny, prepubescent Fred Savage, the shrieking eel nonsense and Wallace Shawn’s inconceivably annoying rants. I forgave our “hero” spending years as a murderous pirate for no discernible reason.  I forgave the stupid and unscary “battle” with a stuffed animal in the Fire Swamp.  I forgave the torturously boring torture scene and the physiologically ridiculous fight between Inigo and Rugen, but I forgave those things because this movie promised a thrilling climax. A dazzling duel between hero and villain. I mean, they had a world-class fencing maestro right there on set. He had already done a great job with one fight scene — the one at the end should have been even better! Fencing on rafters! Falling chandeliers! Backflips! But the best Reiner could come up with was to have the villain wimp out and sit down and get tied up. Haven’t you ever seen a campy sword movie, Reiner? You couldn’t possibly have thought this movie was good enough to be different.

When I first saw this movie, I had a headache for the next day or so, thinking of the two hours I’d never get back. Even after I saw it, I really wanted to like it, but I’m just not that dumb.

Society’s rating:

My rating:

 

And now, the most overrated movie of all time:

 

 

Nightmare poster#1 Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993 Dir. Henry Selick)

This is it, the creme de la crap. How this mess of a movie achieved critical acclaim and won a loyal cult following of tens of millions, I will never understand. Everything about it is just plain warped, right up to the way it was marketed. It was sold to the public as a Christmas family film, and given mild-sounding PG rating. Then, as soon as the theatre doors were shut, a door that looked like a pumpkin swung open and families with young children were sucked into a world full of vampires, werewolves and ghouls in a celebration of the macabre. And I have to admit that this opening number is pretty cool — that is it would be if this were a horror movie. But it’s a Christmas movie, dammit. At least that’s what it said on the poster. Don’t get me wrong, the horror genre has its place, but this is not it. We have to wait until 20% of the movie has gone by to see the first glimmers of holiday cheer. And even once it arrives, there’s not much too it. I know we’ve all seen plenty of cheesy holiday specials with titles like So-and-so saves Christmas, and most of us were tired of them by age 10. But to those specials’ credit, they at least make an effort to capture the true feelings of Christmas that bring people together during the holidays; the joy of giving and forgiving. The only “Christmas” this movie has to offer is the most two-dimensional, cellophane-wrapped, commercialized version imaginable, and even that only shows up for about 5% of the movie.

This movie doesn’t have any good versus evil narrative, which wouldn’t be fatal if it had another narrative that went somewhere — but it doesn’t. It seems to try to tell a story of how a misguided hero’s plans go wrong, but it never gets off the ground. After a whiny solo about being tired of his job, Jack Skellington, the “pumpkin king” of Halloween, wanders into Christmas  Town, and is taken aback by the feelings of warmth and joy that replace the fear of Halloween. Having “grown so tired of the sound of screams,” he becomes convinced that getting involved in Christmas is the way to escape the rut he is in.

So, like any reasonable businessman fancying a career change, Jack seeks out the owner of this … franchise he’s discovered, and buys him a beer and says “I would like to learn more about what you do here, maybe even try working with you for awhile,” right? No of course not. He dispatches three of his minions, Lock, Shock and Barrel, to kidnap Santa, and announces that he is forcibly taking over Christmas. What the hell? It’s really hard to buy Jack as the well-meaning but misguided tragic hero, because if his intentions are truly non-malevolent, he has to be the biggest bone-head the world has ever seen. I mean, how could anyone not out of his skull ever think this was a good idea? When Lock, Shock and Barrel have accomplished their task, they haul in Santa, bound at the hands and feet and tied in a sack (a freaking sack!), and throw him at Jack’s feet. Jack simply tells Santa “You can consider this a vacation — a reward! I’ll be taking it from here.” He then allows Santa to be dragged away by the trio, absentmindedly dismissing them with the comment “See to it he’s comfortable!” Are you kidding me? these kids have shown themselves in previous scenes to be anything but responsible, careful or empathetic, and Jack can see they’re dragging Santa off into a world full of open sewers and torture devices. What does he think the three little psychopaths are going to do, put Santa up in a Hilton and serve him coffee and a croissant every four hours??

Sure enough, Santa soon finds himself stuffed down a pipe and tied to a torture rack in the lair of the

Merry Christmas, suckas!

Merry Christmas, suckas!

Boogieman, Oogie Boogie. Meanwhile, Jack carries on with his insane plan, placing gifts under trees that attack children all over the western world. He never seems to feel the least bit bad about it, his narcissism even prompting him to insist that humanity is “thanking us for doing such a good job,” when the national guard is firing at his sleigh. There’s nothing to root for in this movie. We’re supposed to identify with Jack as his “good intentions” blow up in his face, but he has more in common with a maniacal comic book villain than anything else, sicking killer toys on children a la the Joker, or being driven to remake the world in his image a la the Lizard. The female lead, Sally, at least has her head on straight (if only thanks to stitches), but she never accomplishes anything. We can’t root for Santa to save the day either, because we never see anything he does.

Fans of this movie will probably argue that it wasn’t made for the story, but rather for the animation and the music. To be sure, the stop-motion animation is done with tremendous care and skill, but the most that animation can do is make your movie look real. It can’t make your movie good. Without at least a decent story to carry the movie, no amount of technical skill will save it. And to be honest, as fluid as the animation looks, there’s nothing revolutionary about it. The same techniques have been used hundreds of times before. The music, frankly, is overrated. There are two numbers in the movie that I found impressive; the opening and Oogie’s song. The rest range from annoying to decent, but cliche.

Anyway, Jack finally gets it through his skull that this was a horrible idea, and races back to Halloween Town. We get the single scene in the movie where good faces off against evil, and he saves Santa and Sally from Oogie. Santa races off to magically save the day off camera, and finally causes snow to fall on Halloween Town, presumably for the first time ever. We then get the culmination of a romance that was assumed, rather than developed; a kiss between Jack and Sally, even though they only have about 1.5 lips between them. So did this story actually go anywhere? Is there going to be some cultural exchange or cooperation now between Christmas and Halloween Towns, which might vindicate all this foolishness? Or did Jack actually learn anything from this debacle? Probably not, because Jack wasn’t trying to do something good that went wrong. He was doing exactly what writer/producer Tim Burton did when he wrote this story, along with most of his other stories: taking something that everyone loves, something that was fine as it was, and putting his own twisted stamp on it, expecting us all to care. Look, I’m sorry Burton had an unhappy childhood. That’s no reason to subject all of us to it. The stuff in his movies should be shared with a psychologist, not with families who’ve come to see a warm holiday film. I bet Burton deliberately neglects to flush public toilets, too, because he’s convinced the next person to come along would love to dissect Tim Burton’s leavings to learn what kind of food Tim Burton eats. And that’s what this movie is: the poo from Burton’s narcissistic ass, spread across the silver screen for the world to marvel at and analyze!

Society’s rating:

My rating:

It’s fun to talk about why a movie is good or bad. But just as interesting is the question of what makes people love some bad movies. Some movies achieve acclaim by touching on subjects that make people afraid to criticize them. Glory exploits an inspiring part of history. No one wants to say anything negative about it, partly for fear of being considered racist or otherwise uncaring, and partly because they really want the film to be as meaningful as the event. Some films rely on shear marketing “firepower,” spending huge numbers of dollars. The world was smothered in merchandise related to Cars and The Nightmare Before Christmas both before and after their releases. Everyone talks about how much they love them, but few actually remember the movies themselves. Still other films manage to get a commitment from people early, so that they refuse to believe they have been cheated. The Princess Bride actually starts out pretty promisingly. That was why I endured the last two thirds of it and really tried to like it. It seems many people actually managed to make themselves like it. Marvel Studios actually spent four movies advertising Avengers. People were so excited, they were giving Avengers five-star ratings before they’d even seen it.

I hope you got a kick out of this article. Perhaps you have an overrated movie you’d like us at Walking Taco to take down a peg. (Already, I’m beginning to think of movies that probably should have been on this list.) If you do, post a comment and ask us to review it! Until then, good night.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
2 COMMENTS

Hansel & Gretal: Witch Hunters

H&G PosterWhen last we met, we covered the evolution of various supernatural critters from detestable to desirable. Vampires are a particularly striking example of an archetype that began as walking, rotting corpses, and rose to be portrayed as superior to humans in almost every way. And now, with Warm Bodies, zombies have begun to travel the same road. But as this happens, producers of fiction lose a useful tool in the form of a creature that can be killed without remorse. This leaves writers searching for a new archetype to fill the role of humanity’s enemy. Sometimes what they come up with is surprising.

Writer/director Tommy Wirkola has found an unlikely replacement:

witches. His latest work, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, starts out with an abridged retelling of the classic children’s tale of two kids who are apparently abandoned in the woods, find a house made of candy, and are captured by a hideous, cannibalistic crone, until they knock her into her own oven. This refresher is graphic, brutal, and not for children. Hansel and Gretel then vow to spend their lives hunting down and killing witches, and we are treated to a montage of newspaper clippings and wood-cut drawings, showing their exploits over the next fifteen years.

We don’t have to think much for this movie. Hansel (Jeremy Renner) narrates “We learned two important things that day (when they escaped the witch as children). One, never walk into a house made of candy. And two, if you’re going to kill a witch, set her ass on fire.” Good advice.

Gemma Arterton, up to her usual awesomeness.

Gemma Arterton, up to her usual awesomeness.

The main story deals with the twins working a case in Augsburg, investigating the disappearances of 11 children. The witches in this movie display many of the traits we’ve seen in vampires and werewolves in recent years: super human strength (why? Because it’s cool), animal-like movements (why? Because it’s cool), and an apparent black belt in jujitsu (why? … must you ask?). Hansel and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) save a beautiful young woman named Mina (Pihla Viitala) from being wrongfully executed as a witch. Hansel announces to the obligatory mob of villagers that when a woman engages in the black arts, a nasty rot sets in. That’s right, the witches in this movie are essentially walking, rotting corpses. Sound familiar?

Jean Grey gone bad. Or did she already do that?

Jean Grey gone bad. Or did she already do that?

Is it a good movie? No. But the real questions is how well do the witches satisfy that part of us that just wants to weild a shotgun, as zombies used to do for us? The best thing about this movie is that it’s not afraid to be politically incorrect. The witches are plentiful. They’re ugly. And they’re decidedly unsympathetic. They’re a bit harder to kill than zombies, but the writers always find a way. All this movie really is is a big, silly bonanza of over-the-top stunts, awesome weapons that could never exist and dazzling fireballs. (It’s even sillier than Van Helsing, if you can believe that). It’s the kind of movie where people get knocked through walls, jump up and keep fighting.  It doesn’t need to be good; it’s a blast.

But are the witches really all subhuman monsters? Are there none we can identify with? Are all those female

Bad witch.

Bad witch.

movie goers who spent their teen years fantasizing about being witches and making love potions going to be left out in the cold?

Well, we eventually learn that, in fact, Mina is a witch, a “white witch” who uses her powers for “good.” Good witches don’t have the rot set in. So how do we tell a good witch from a bad? We look at their outward appearance. How delightfully shallow. Of course, even Mina admits that there are not many good witches, so the good news is most of the witches are just going to be fodder for the awesome fight scenes.

To be fair, there are some clever ideas in this movie, such as the glass milk bottles that bear pictures of the missing children, or the subplot in which Hansel has to take an insulin shot every day, due to all the candy the witch made him eat as a child to fatten him up. There is also a fresh take on the reason the twins’ parents abandoned them in the forest that fateful night. But this is also one of the nastiest movies I have ever seen. Not only is it excessively gory, but the subject matter is pretty intense. There are graphic scenes of children being starved and terrorized by the witches (I understand there were some scenes cut out that were even worse) and one of a witch magically forcing a teen boy to shoot his own mother. Rape is also hinted at. After all, the original “children’s tale” is pretty nasty when you think about it. The Brothers Grimm tended to live up to their name.

Good witch. See the difference?

Good witch. See the difference?

I expect witches’ time on popular fiction’s crap list will be briefer than that of some other creatures, if only because we’re so accustomed to seeing pretty witches save the day. So what’s going to come next? Maybe vampires will cycle around for another run. Personally, I think I’ll stick with my old standby: zombies.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
2 COMMENTS

Warm Bodies

WB posterBefore we begin our discussion of Warm Bodies, I want to say few words about vampires. Why vampires? Because zombies and vampires have a great deal in common, especially if you look at their history. In ancient times, vampires bore more resemblance to zombies than to anything we would call a vampire today. They looked – and smelled – like the reanimated corpses they were. At dusk, they would claw their way out of their graves and stagger about, seeking to feed upon the living. And they did not wear Vampire perfume.

The reasons for their existence also intersect. Everyone today is used to zombies being created by a virus. But you probably don’t know that vampires, too, have been through this phase. You are probably familiar with the 2007 zombie movie I am Legend, directed by Francis Lawrence and starring Will Smith. You might not know that this is a remake of The Last Man on Earth, directed by Sidney Salkow and starring Vincent Price220px-Lastmanonearth1960s (1964), which was based on the novel I am Legend by Richard Matheson (1954). Of course, neither Last Man, nor the novel had a single zombie. That’s right, in those stories, a disease turns the living into vampires. For some reason, they are still repelled by crosses and mirrors. Go figure.

Bella Lugosi started a change in the vampire’s image in 1931, and people began to think of vampires as dapper gentlemen. Another significant milestone came with Interview with the Vampire (Dir. Neil Jordan, 1994), the first major motion picture to focus on the vampire’s point of view. Interview included, among other things, Louis (Brad Pitt), a vampire whose conscience is haunted by the people he has to drain to survive. Instead of rooting for Louis’ destruction, moviegoers felt bad for him. Of course, it didn’t hurt that he looked like one of Hollywood’s most bankable heartthrobs. This was the fulcrum in the swing from vampires as dangerous to vampires as desirable. More recent vampires are genuine bring-home-to-mom material, and in fact are often kinder and more thoughtful than humans. In fact, in certain series, e.g. Underworld, vampires don’t even drink human blood. The subject of how they survive is kind of glossed over, leaving us to assume that vampires exist only to look sexy, twirl pistols, and spout the angst of a prolonged adolescence.

SeleneA lot of people are really enjoying this desirable vampire craze, of course. Nothing has generated so much drooling female hysteria as the smut series we call Twilight. But as much as Interview gave us, it also caused us to lose something. Vampires as they once were provided no end of engaging stories and wish fulfillment, because they were enemies you could kill without remorse (because they were already, you know, dead). Everyone loves a story of human struggle and triumph, especially with some combat thrown in, but when such stories involve human enemies, that raises all kinds of pesky moral issues, along with the occasional libel suit. If we have to sympathize with vampires now, who can we kill without remorse?

Zombies to the rescue! I’ve already expounded on the flood of zombie flicks we’ve seen in the 19 years since Interview. Zombie movies are the perfect genre. They’re quick and cheap to make, they don’t need to be good, and they are the perfect form of escapism, because not only do they provide an army of unfeeling, unthinking enemies, they also bring about the downfall of the Man. That mortgage you’re stressed about? Forget about it! That cubicle job you have to go to everyday? Not anymore! You now need concern yourself with three things: Food. Shelter. Zombies. So pick up your shotgun or chainsaw, and go have a head-splattering, limb-severing blast, all amid a playground of empty mansions, unguarded stores, and abandoned Ferraris.

This brings us to Warm Bodies. We join our narrator, a zombie (Nicholas Hoult) who remembers only that his name started with R, as he shambles through a crowd of other zombies, who occasionally manage to squeeze single words from their rigor mortized throats. We also meet Bonies. Bonies are what zombies will eventually become. They resemble the more skeletal monsters from The Mummy and are conceptually the same thing as the re-deads from the Resident Evil games. Our hero makes his home in a disused airplane, where he collects trinkets, listens to vinyl and wishes to be alive again.

Meanwhile, a group of teenagers, including lovers Perry (Dave Franco) and Julie (Teresa Palmer), leaves a fortified compound to scavenge supplies. They are busily ransacking a pharmacy, when a pack of zombies, including R, takes them by surprise. R is momentarily knocked down and watches Julie, rhythmically firing her shot gun, and apparently falls for her. In the following moments, R kills Perry, and proceeds to consume him. He narrates that when a zombie eats someone’s brain, that zombie experiences that person’s memories.

R teaches Julie to act like a zombie.

R teaches Julie to act like a zombie.

He concludes “I don’t want to hurt you. I just want to feel what you felt … to feel a little less dead.” The zombies come out the clear winners of this skirmish, and Julie is left standing alone, her magazines drained and her throwing knives spent. R approaches her before most of the others have left their kills and speaks her name, having learned it from Perry’s brain. To her astonishment, he rubs blood and grime over her face, and tells her “Come … s-safe.” With few options, she follows him and realizes the other zombies assume she is a new “addition to the family.” He takes her home and promises, in what sentence fragments he can manage, to keep her safe. However, she initially refuses to interact with him other than by curling into a ball and crying. He comments “I can tell when a girl needs her space. There’s other ways to get to know someone. Like eating her dead boyfriend’s brains.” He has saved several pieces from the attack, and over the next few days, he learns more of Perry and Julie’s story, and becomes increasingly remorseful for killing Perry. During this same time frame, R(omeo) and Julie(t) begin to talk more and grow closer.

R begins to change. His heart begins to beat, he begins to experience warmth and cold, and he begins to dream (“The dead do not sleep”). What’s more, as R changes, it also seems to affect the other zombies. Significantly, the zombies in this movie lack the wounds other zombie movies like to put on their zombies.  No lips missing, or ribs showing or anything. From the beginning, I wondered if being a zombie was any different from having arthritis and Alzheimer’s. We actually don’t get any clues as to how any of these people died (supposedly, none of them remember). The implication seems to be, at least at the symbolic level, that these zombies only ever “died” in that they forgot what it was to be human. As they start to remember, they start to move less stiffly and form sentences. Meanwhile, Julie begins trying to convince her father (John Malkovich), who runs the compound that the zombies are not the enemy and want to help.

All this is thrown together pretty loosely. For example, there’s never really a good explanation of how the humans and zombies end up allied against the Bonies. But I’m not complaining. I have to admit, the end of Warm Bodies really did bring a smile to my face, even if there were some holes in the plot. After so many zombie flicks tried to out do each other with bleakness and cynicism, it was cool to see one where there actually was a cure found — and it wasn’t some magical batch of chemicals, but simply, well … a little TLC.

But geez, now we’ve also lost zombies as unfeeling enemies that we can kill without remorse! If bothzombies love 2 vampires and zombies are now eligible mates with hopes, dreams and humanity, what supernatural creatures can we still use as fodder for the part of us that just wants to wield a shotgun? Hmm … maybe witches? More on that next time.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
1 COMMENT

Runaway Slave

RS posterBy now, everybody and their dog is familiar with the series The Walking Dead on AMC, so you’ve probably seen the part where Rick Grimes rides into Atlanta, only to find it full of dilapidated corpses, shambling to and fro with a glassy-eyed stare, rotted flesh hanging from their faces, seeking only their next kicking, screaming meal. There’s a part of Runaway Slave eerily similar to that scene. Rev. C.L. Bryant, seeking answers to his questions, arrives in Atlanta, former commercial center of slavery and political center of the Confederacy, also the birthplace of MLK and, arguably, the Civil Rights movement. As he begins conducting interviews, he meets many people with the same glassy-eyed, hopeless stares, their bodies bearing tattoos and other scars of a pointless, nihilistic existence of government colonization. But of course, this isn’t some theoretical apocalyptic scenario. This is real life, and these are real Atlantans.

Runaway Slave is a documentary by Bryant, the great, great grandson of slaves in Louisiana who purchased 64 acres from their former masters upon emancipation. He lives on the same 64 acres today, when he’s not speaking at rallies around the country. Earlier in life, Bryant was a loyal member of the NAACP, and was climbing the hierarchy with some success, until he refused to speak at a pro-abortion rally. For his refusal, he was forced to resign from the organization. He was later fired from the church that he pastored for speaking out against big government. He made this film in 2010 and 2011, during the initial outrage that boiled up over Obamacare being rammed

Bryant interviews Alfonzo Rachel on the streets of L.A.

Bryant interviews Alfonzo Rachel on the streets of L.A.

through Congress. At that time he was speaking, among other places, at Tea Party rallies all over the country, and receiving hate mail calling him an Uncle Tom and a house n**ger.

The film opens with footage of the Restoring Honor rally on the Washington Mall the 47th anniversary of MLK’s famous march on Washington, featuring the likes of Glenn Beck and Dr. Alveda King (MLK’s niece). It zips back and forth between this event and Al Sharpton’s Reclaim the Dream rally at the White House, both happening at the same time. (Something that was odd, but cool, to note: At one point at the Beck/King rally, the camera zooms in on an American flag someone is carrying. Just below it on the same poll is a Nebraska Cornhuskers flag. Don’t know how it got there, but I paused the movie and it is definitely a Husker flag. Rex Burkhead would be proud.) Bryant is at the Sharpton rally, and interviews several people there, including Black Panthers. Afterward, he asks why, when the two groups profess to want most of the same things, Sharpton’s flock spews so much bile and seems to have so much hatred for those at the Honor rally.

As Bryant explains early on in the film, he is plagued with questions such as why, in an age when someone’s race doesn’t hold them back from walking into any business, voting, or holding any job, black Americans still believe they are not “free at last,” or why, after the Democrats fought to keep slavery legal, fought to keep schools segregated, sicked dogs on black protesters, and shot history’s greatest black leader, black Americans now vote 95% Democrat. He says “I have to find out if there are other people out there who think the way I do.” (If he’s been speaking at rallies for years, I think he probably knows, but every documentary needs a kickoff.) He then travels the country, interviewing people of different races and different political stripes. He interviews Jesse Jackson, and the aptly named Ben Jealous (he tries to interview Sharpton, who blows him off). However, the largest group that he talks to is black conservatives, such us Star Parker, Alfonzo Rachel and David Webb.

Sowell

Runaway Slave is not just an excuse to plug the books and web sites of people Bryant agrees with. It’s a well-made documentary that takes on some tough questions, generates some good discussion, and leaves room for the audience to do its own thinking. The editing can be a little bit rough. Sometimes, Bryant will be talking to someone, and their lips won’t go with the words, as if we’re looking at an establishing shot, while we’re hearing dialogue from a more central shot. Bryant can come off as just a tad narcissistic as well, as there are some shots were he appears to be interviewing himself. But in fairness, this is because he feels the need to explain why he is making this film. This is a documentary with a view point, but that doesn’t make it any less worth watching. I’d say the most interesting part is about 1 hour in, when Bryant covers the decision by a school board in North Carolina, under the strain of budget limitations, to stop cross-city busing. The reaction of certain people is quite telling. And disturbing.

Runaway Slave is a gusty and in-your-face move, but also carefully done and thoughtfully presented. It’s a movie that everyone should see.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
LEAVE A COMMENT

Rise of the Guardians

Rise G posterThe first thing you’ll notice about Rise of the Guardians is that it’s certainly, well, different. We start off with narration by the main character (Chris Pine). “Darkness … that’s the first thing I remember. It was dark and it was cold and I was scared.” Fair enough. But he continues. “Then I saw the Moon. It seemed to chase the dark away, and then I wasn’t scared anymore.” Ooookay. About this time, we see our narrator, his face young, but his hair white, apparently being pulled by an unseen force through the top of a frozen lake, to alight, barefoot, on the snow-covered branch of a tree, apparently unbothered by the cold. He soon wanders into a village, where he realizes no one can see or hear him. He continues: “My name is Jack Frost. How do I know that? The Moon told me so. That’s all he ever told me.”

Ooookay.

We then cut to 300 years later, at the North Pole. How do we know it’s the North Pole? The text on screen tells us so. We cut to the inside of a building, where a pair of booted feet make the ground shake with each step. We see a pair of strong arms, one tattooed “naughty,” the other tattooed “nice,” gripping a chainsaw, as it lays into a hapless block of ice. As a brilliant ice sculpture takes shape, we hear a booming voice: “Still waiting for cookies!”

Yes, it’s him. Chris Cringle, Pier Noel, bringer of joy and lover of children, but he’s nothing like you’ve seen in any other Santa movie. “North,” as he is nicknamed in Guardians (Alec Baldwin), is a regular badass, a mountain of a man that would make Jack Reacher submissive (yeah, I said it). He drives a tricked-out sleigh that would make Shaft jealous, pulled by reindeer that look like they should be ridden by the eight horsemen of the apocalypse. Or maybe Ghost Rider. Or the Headless Horseman. (They totally needed a scene where North pulls the sleigh up in front of the Fortress of Solitude and yells “Hey, Kent! You need to get yourself one of these babies!” And then races off, leaving a green-with-envy Superman in a cloud of dust. Alas, I wasn’t consulted.) Best of all, he carries these two huge scimitars, which he twirls with expertise, and with which he slices and dices the forces of evil!

Dude! Where was this Santa when I was kid??

North looks at his globe, a magical monitor from which he watches over all the children of the world and sees evil power creeping across it. He deduces that the lord of all evil himself, none other than the Boogeyman (Jude Law), is amassing power for an attack on the world’s kids. He calls an emergency meeting of the Guardians, supernatural beings who are given the power and responsibility to protect the wonder and innocence of children everywhere. The team consists of North, the Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), the Sandman (no voice) and, of course,

I'm not a kangaroo, mate. I'm a bunny. The EASTER Bunny.

I’m not a kangaroo, mate. I’m a bunny. The EASTER Bunny.

the Easter Bunny, who is also nothing like you’ve seen before. “Bunny” is voiced by Hugh Jackman, and Jackman must have enjoyed the heck out of this roll. He gives free reign to his Australian accent, and kicks his tough-guy persona into overdrive. Fittingly, his animated avatar is six feet tall, master of Thai-Chi and sports thorny tattoos across his keg-sized shoulders. He also wears a quiver across his back, carrying deadly boomerangs and egg bombs, which he’s not afraid to use.

Awesome. Though I have to say, all this makes watching him paint beautiful designs on eggs kind of awkward. Imagine if you caught Tito Ortiz doing needle point. Well, nothing’s perfect.

As you’ve probably figured out, this is a story not unlike The Avengers. The idea is to get a handful of superhumans together and have them fight against a huge army of nameless, faceless bad guys led by one villain who actually speaks. The Boogeyman (aka Pitch Black) even has a back story similar to that of Loki in Avengers (also rather similar to that of Satan in the Bible). He was once a Guardian, but when he demanded all the power and renown for himself, The Man in the Moon dismissed him from the company of the Guardians, and cast him down to the earth, to wander about scaring people. The Man in the Moon fills the roll of God in this story. We never see him directly, but he selects people to be Guardians and directs them in the fight against evil. He watches over the earth. And for a movie about Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy … it works well enough. Once he knows Pitch is up to something, the Man in the Moon selects Jack Frost to join the ranks of the Guardians, and the battle begins.

If your dentist had Tooth's enthusiasm, you would run out the door in terror.

If your dentist had Tooth’s enthusiasm, you would run out the door in terror.

How does Rise of the Guardians stack up? It definitely takes some risks and I have to give it a nod for that. It’s not likely to become a classic, but it creates a world you can lose yourself in, and takes its characters to a place no one ever has before. It has a few gripping action sequences, and some funny lines. All in all, I liked it, and held on to the DVD to watch it a second time before returning it. Director Peter Ramsey helmed it well, considering that, with what they tried to do conceptually, it could have been an absolute train wreck of a movie, and it was actually pretty good. Plus, it’s safe for kids.

Maybe even a little too safe. There is one major flaw in Guardians, and that is that they do an absolutely abysmal job with the villain. Pitch is represented in every scene as this weird looking guy who mainly hangs out in the shadows and whines about how unfair his life is. They never make him scary. This is especially problematic considering who he is supposed to be. I mean, he’s the  Boogeyman, for Pete’s sake! He’s a Satan. A Dracula. The embodiment of all evil and terror from our basest instincts. The faceless horror that reaches out of every shadow to drag you to Hell. He’s the reason 4-year-olds wake up screaming at 2 a.m., the reason you suddenly start walking faster at night and you don’t know why, the reason grown men still make sure their closets are latched before bed. He needs to scare the audience, but Pitch never becomes the slightest bit threatening. We never see him do anything, except create this army of black horses (Night-mares. Get it?) that the Guardians fight. It’s implied that he’s giving kids nightmares around the world, but we never see any nightmares, or their effects.

Do something scary!

Do something scary!

I understand they were making a PG family film; I’m not asking to see blood and guts. They still could have made him scary. All Ramsey had to do was watch a few Disney movies and take notes. Disney has perfected the art of terrorizing kids and still getting a G rating. Throughout the whole movie, I thought it must be building to something. Pitch was going to change into something horrible and start attacking some kids … no? Well, I’m sure they’ll at least have some decent jump-scares where he pops out of something, maybe his eyes red, his teeth pointy … no? Well maybe he’ll transform for the final battle … nope. Pitch stays the same bland computer sprite for the entire movie and never makes himself a real threat. That, by itself, takes a star and a half off of this movie’s score.

Oh, well, like I said, nothing’s perfect. Guardians is still a wild ride, and well worth watching, if only for being original and good.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Have you seen this movie? Rate it!
Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
LEAVE A COMMENT