Friday, December 21, 2007

On Fire

I must apologize for the lack of new content on this site for the past few months.

I have been involved in the running of a marathon, the moving of a house, and, most recently, the passing of the stones of kidneys.

Anyway, I shall be returning to you all very shortly.

In the meanwhiles, please remain patient and ever vigilant of bad movies. There are a few gems coming soon, so keep your eyes peeled.

And for those of you in need of a summer flick, I recommend "I am Legend." A fine balance of old and new, with an Oscar nod for the dog as Best Supporting.

Watch Carefully.

Friday, November 02, 2007

Strike Out

So the TV and Film writers of Hollywood have decided to go on strike.

What does this mean for we, the consumers?

Not a lot.

In fact, this may be a good thing. Perhaps, with all the pretendous (Homestar Copyright 07) writers who've laid waste to what was once great filmage taking a short nap, there could be a gem or two slipping by into the laps of producers.

Maybe we'll actually get a good movie out of this whole event, instead of the torture-porn orgy we've received over the last few weeks.

Allow me to rip on some movies.

"Saw IV" might be one of the worst ideas in a long, sad line of bad ideas for movies. I hate--and I use the word with full meaning--this sudden surge of violent, anti-plot movies that has risen over the last few years.

How many times can I watch someone listen to that stupid voice say, "You have a choice. Die because of the poison gas/pointless deathtrap/high cholesterol, or murder this family member/stranger/child/care bear"?

And the guy is dead, or so we are lead to beleive. How did he manage to kidnap people and set up this elaborate death trap?

You know what? I DON'T CARE!

Why is this the number 1 movie in America? Because people are stupid.

I'm not saying ya'll are, because just by reading this blog you've gained 45 IQ points. I'm saying everyone else is stupid.

Anyway, let's move on.

"I Am Legend" appears to be, with all evidence supporting, a remake of "The Last Man on Earth."

I'll make a prediction here: It's not gonna be as good as the original.

"P2." I'm not even gonna dignify this movie with a response. It's just the worst concept of a movie anyone could write.

In fact, looking at the lineup for the next few weeks, I'm depressed that I've chosen a career in support of these people. I could have been a farmer. At least then I'd get paid good money and be expected to produce shit.

Anyway, I'll be coming at ya'll soon with a review, so get ready. It's gonna be bad.

Like always.

Watch carefully.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Way to Not Suck: 30 Days of Night


WARNING
Spoilers Ahead


Back when Saturday Night Live was funny, they had a great sketch called "Lowered Expectations."

It was a segment on dating videos where the client was a sack of crap, but figured you couldn't do any better.

Hilarity ensued.

In the same vein, by lowering MY expectations for 30 Days of Night, I was able to enjoy the film to a greater extent than those of you who thought it might be good.

You see, there is a simple fact you need to accept.

Modern films aren't good.

They haven't been good in a long time.

Modern directors think audiences are stupid, so they make sure the plot points are hammered in until you can't stand to hear them anymore. They plant images so obviously in the scenery that your eyes are violated by forced beauty. The music cues your emotions so you don't even have to be involved to emote.

All in all, it makes modern film a pornographic experience rather than a work of love.

When I first heard of "30 DoN," I was very excited. I'm an old school vampire man; I like my undead to be freaky and violent.

Anne Rice is amazing, don't get me wrong, and Interview With a Vampire remains an incredible film, but I want creatures without souls to scare the shit out of me.

Some of you may be confused by the term "undead." Allow me to explain.

Vampires, as they cease to function in the sense of living humans, are clinically dead. Their reanimation is the source of the Devil/a virus/the moon/ the Rolling Stones. The term "undead" refers to the fact that they were dead, but are now the opposite.

The term "living dead" refers to zombies, another one of my horror staples. Zombies (not Xombie, the voodoo variant) are rotting corpses that eat the flesh of the living. Not much is known about Zombies, and I fear that speaking their name too often will result in an early uprising of the dead.

Carrying on, our journey of "30 DoN" begins with the introduction of Alaska as Earth's second asshole (the first being Antarctica, as proven in The Thing). The sun, ashamed of even being associated with such a place, leaves for a month.

At this time, vampires (being crafty and butt-ugly at the same time) decide to have an orgy of blood and violence.

All this is great as far as horror movies go. I've heard worse.

Seriously. How many ways can teenagers find to get into cabins, hotels and other out-of-the-way places so they can be easily butchered? Or tortured by rich Europeans?

The monsters use stealth and ridiculous speed and strength, as well as a screech that haunts my ears. They drench themselves in blood and never once take a shower.

This detail I approve of heartily. In fact, I would say the make-up and movement of the vampires is one of the best in the film genre for the past few years. The effects artists really put some effort in.

Another kudos goes to the cinematographer. I don't know any cool terms to use here, so just trust me. This was a well shot film.

As for the acting, writing, story and characters...well, let's just say I muttered "cliche" once or twice.

"30 DoN" is based off a graphic novel of the same name, and like "Sin City" before it, the movie does a reasonable job of sticking to the source material. I happened to watch the film with an expert, and he only pointed out some flaws at the end.

Now, since I've mentioned flaws, I should say one thing.

This is a bad film.

It's not awful. It does not deserve such a title, but I cannot recommend it.

In fact, I would warn against seeing it.

Hopefully, given that, your expectations will be very low if you do ever find it before you. In that case, you might enjoy it for the buckets of blood it piles on.

And I mean buckets. There is more blood here than in "Saving Private Ryan." The director had a fire hose hooked up to a blood machine and forgot to turn it off.

Josh Hartnett, a fine actor for romantic comedies and--well that's all I'll trust him with--was the wrong choice. Does he try? Yes, and he deserves a medal for really twisting his "I miss my girlfriend" face into something resembling fear.

The other characters are stock and don't apply to logical debate.

The cliches are worth noting: You have the "guy who panics and gets people killed", "the whore", "the separated couple", "the kid brother"...I could go on forever.

As for the vampires, you get the "lithe and psychotic female" who is obviously the love interest of "the leader". If not for the fact that she looked fuglier than Linda Tripp, you could imagine liking her.

And I mean fugly. As previously mentioned, the make-up is incredible. It looks as though they took the face-distortion from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (TV) and hit it with a bat.

Are there holes in the plot? Of course, it's a horror movie and you can't expect people to think these things through. The characters make RIDICULOUSLY stupid decisions in the name of furthering the story, but you forgive them because something explodes bloodily later.

I warn all those who are feint of heart not to watch, as this is one of the goriest movies I've seen in some time.

That said, if you like vampires and must know if someone can survive for 30 days, go ahead and watch.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Watch carefully.