5 Movies Everyone Loves that Actually Kind of Suck

Teenagers can be stupid. But it’s not really their fault; they just like to be a part of the crowd. Actually, teenagers like to think they’re not a part of the crowd, which, quite ironically, makes them a part of the crowd since every teenager thinks that. Anyway, that’s off topic. If there’s one thing teenagers are most stupid about, it’s movies. All it takes is one person to declare how awesome a movie is and all the sudden everyone loves it, even if it doesn’t deserve it. And I think movie studios know this. So they keep producing movies they know will be stupid but teenagers will love them anyway. Because teenagers are where the money is. Anyway, here are some movies which everyone loves that I just don’t get. Box office results don’t lie. They’re not in any particular order, just because I don’t feel like it. Also, I know this is somewhat hypocritical because I'm barely not a teenager. But that's okay, because no one reads the introductions, anyway. I could reveal here that I'm actually a vigilante who goes around at night beating up bad guys, and you'd never know.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

I remember when comedies didn’t rely on their audience to be high in order to enjoy them. You don’t see it much, anymore. I also remember when Will Ferrell was actually trying to be funny instead of playing the same person in every movie, graduating from the Adam Sandler Academy of How to Make Money Without Actually Being Talented. I also remember having to walk 15 miles, barefoot, in the snow to see movies. Imagine my disappointment when Anchorman, a movie everyone swore to me was kind of a big deal, was not a big deal. Is it funny? Sure, if you laugh at knock-knock jokes and have a Will Ferrell shrine in your closet.

The Notebook

This one probably shouldn’t be on here. Not because I think it doesn’t suck, but because criticizing The Notebook for girls is like criticizing Lord of the Rings for nerds or criticizing Vladimir Putin for Russian journalists. The movie’s an exercise in predictability and also explains what’s wrong with relationships, these days. Love triumphs overall! Yes! Oh, wait, except for that one guy (I don’t remember his name but he was played by James Marsden, or Cyclops in the X-Men movies) who Rachel McAdams ditches for the guy she fought with all the time. Even after he forgave her for cheating on him, she still left his ass for this guy whose only interest was yelling at her. You know what happened to that guy (I just Wikipedia-ed his name and found out it was Hammond). You know what happened to Hammond?

Heartbroken for being dumped despite being a good guy, Hammond, depressed and lonely, turned to alcohol, went crazy, and started wearing clown makeup to mask the scars on his face resulting from multiple suicide attempts. He then moved to a little place called Gotham City and lived happily ever after. All thanks to Rachel McAdams being an indecisive jerk.

300

This was difficult to put on the list (not really, I’m just kind of tired of typing) because of all the sucky movies on here, 300 is probably the least suckiest. But, with that said, it still hides behind a curtain of special effects and grunts and abdominal muscles that make me feel like a wad of pudding. 300 is like that guy girls meet at the party who has the body, flip-flops, cockiness, and charisma and convinces the girl that he’s pretty much her dream guy. For one night, anyway. That’s 300. It hides the fact that is has a weak storyline behind a fake sepia effect and less historical accuracy than fucking Transformers. When you take away the glitz and glam, you’re left with 2 hours of guys doing ballet with swords.

Also, why is it that Ephialtes, despite his honorable intentions, is casts from the group of Spartans? Hmm…let me think…does it have something to do with the fact that he doesn’t have a Michelangelo body? No! Couldn’t be! Hollywood doesn’t embrace hotness and reject averageness. Except for like that one time. And those 129,023,873,923,183,292 other times.

Slumdog Millionaire

It won the Academy Award for best picture, so I should’ve known it was going to suck. It meets all the criteria for winning the Oscar: It’s long, it’s boring, it tries to be emotional, you don’t give a shit about what’s going on, it’s independent, and it doesn’t have giant robots or dinosaurs in it.

Spider-Man 3

Spider-Man 3 is the Voldemort of Cinema. I don’t like talking about it. It makes me uncomfortable. So I won’t mention the horrible dialogue, Peter Parker snapping his fingers while dancing like John Travolta dressed as an emo kid, the love triangle that makes no sense, the “buddy scene” at the end, Venom not showing up until the movie’s pretty much over, the fake and clichéd emotion Raimi tries to induce from Marko having a sick daughter, the lazy writing, the corniness, the fact that Maryjane needs saving again (she’s like the Princess Peach of the movie world).

I mean, if I was Spider-Man, by the third time she needs saving I’d just be like “fuck it” and go find a new girlfriend. It’s not like it would be hard. I mean you’re fucking Spider-Man. You could walk into any party and pretty much have your pick of the litter (well, provided there are no writers or 1998 Honda Civic drivers or Brents at the party, or God help you a combination of all 3...).

Spider-Man 3 is epitomized in the end, when Sandman flies off into the sunset. Peter Parker forgives him for, you know, killing his uncle, countless innocent people, stealing tons of money, destroying property, maiming cops, etc. etc. It’s kind of like Sam Raimi himself (the director in case no one watches as many movies as me) is apologizing to us for raping our dreams that the third installment to the Spider-Man series might actually be pretty good. I, though, unlike Peter Parker, am not nearly as forgiving.

Brent Saltzman

DM Media 2009

6 Reasons I Just Can't Take 'Harry Potter' Seriously

So I finally got around to watching the 6th installment of the gripping Harry Potter franchise that actually isn’t all that gripping because everyone already knows exactly what happens, and it was hard for me not to notice how dark and gloomy it was. It was like some emo kids snuck onto the set and started passing around joints and turning up the Tool music. This is a glaring contrast to the first two movies, which blended darkness with this unique little charm that made them quite enjoyable. That’s tough for me to admit, especially considering I’d be more embarrassed if someone found a Harry Potter DVD in my closet than if someone found a big stack of fetish porn. But this new direction they’ve been taking since the third one just doesn’t strike a chord with me. It’s Harry-fucking-Potter. When it tries to be all dark and badass it just comes off like one of those kittens on youtube clawing at the screen and hissing (or Spider-Man 3, which in itself is a movie that should not be named…). It wants people to take it seriously, but you just can’t, and here are six of the (most obvious) reasons why.

#6---Quidditch

Quidditch is the Wizarding World’s answer to soccer, football, basketball, and absolute pointlessness all rolled into one. I understand that Wizards need sports too, but instead of something cool like sea parting or shooting things with wand lasers or something they instead ride around on broomsticks beating the hell out of each other for no reason, because whoever catches the little golden ball thingy wins. You know how kickers in football (the good kind), who only come to practice about 20 minutes and chill on the sideline while everyone else gets their asses beat in the game, are actually set up to win the game for the team? That’s how Quidditch is. It doesn’t matter how well your “beater” beats, as long as you don’t totally suck and go down by 160 points, and as long as that little wuss who hasn’t been involved in any of the action gets the golden thing, you win. Oh, and to reiterate, it’s on broomsticks. They could’ve badassed it up a little and let them ride around on dragons instead. But no. Broomsticks.

#5---The Names

So you’re the Dark Prince of Wizardry. You’re the world’s ultimate badass and no one will so much as utter your name without hyperventilating. The whole world is on edge just because of you. So, one day, you come home to your wife, battered and bruise, and the conversation goes a little like this:

Voldemort’s Wife: “Oh my, god! Honey, what happened?”

Voldemort: “I tried to commit mass genocide, enslave the rest of the human race, and take over humanity, both magical and not, with a shroud of everlasting darkness."

Voldemort’s Wife: “Well, how did it go?”

Voldemort: “I got my ass kicked by Dumbledore. Dumbledore.”

Having names like Slughorn, Dedalus Diggle, Luna Lovegood, those were all fine and dandy when the movies were still aimed at children and didn’t try to go all Dark Knight on us. But now, they just sound stupid. If my name was Professor Mad Eyed Moody, I wouldn’t expect anyone to seriously consider the outstanding academic potential of my class, either.

#4---Wands

I know that wands are part of the whole Wizarding mythos, but when your Wizards are going around making out and killing people, then maybe that’s your indication that you should tastefully update your methods. How about like a Wii-mote or something? You know that scene in every single action movie ever made where the bad guy has a gun pointed at the good guy, getting ready to kill him, but not before mocking him and telling him how he wins? Pretty badass, right? Now replace that with a fucking wooden stick and suddenly it doesn’t seem so threatening, I don’t care how good it is at streaming out laser shows. And when you give that “pointy-stick-hold-up” scene the atmosphere of a Saw movie, like the end of the Half-Blood Prince does, it makes it almost comical.

Personally, if I was at Hogwarts, I wouldn’t have anything to do with wands. Instead, I’d be walking around with one of those lightning guns from District 9 that paint walls with human viscera. Voldemort can point his little wooden stick at me as aggressively as he wants, because if I have that lightning gun, his ass is getting fucked up. I don’t care how many horcruxes he has.

#3---Snogging

I know it’s just British colloquialism, and that’s fine. But when we’re in the midst of an overlord attempting to annihilate every living soul on the planet and bring Hell upon the masses, the word “snogging,” which comes up about 19,209,190,239,023 times in the 6th installment, takes you completely out of it and reminds you that you’re watching something that was originally intended for 10-year-old outcasts. They could’ve used kissing, frenching, hell, even macking would’ve been okay. But they went with snogging, which honestly sounds more like something that happens at Smurf frat parties in those rooms with the hair tie over the knob.

#2---Deus Ex Machina

Firstly, Deus Ex Machina is not just a videogame, but in a literary sense is when a solution basically just comes out of nowhere with no foreshadowing to it. The most famous example is the end of War of the Worlds, where all the Martians die, their entire plan to take over the planet thwarted, all because they forgot to pack Purell.

There’s another term, though, for DXM that you may have a better understanding of: Cop out.Oh, no, Harry needs to breath underwater, what will he do?! Ah, a magical underwater breathing thing. Brilliant! Oh no, he needs to sneak around without being seen! Does he go all Sam Fisher on everyone? Nope, an invisibility cloak. You see what I’m getting at, here?

The problem with having magic as the primary plot device in a movie or book is that magic, well, can do anything. It’s kind of like that old saying, “Because God said so!” that no one uses, anymore. Whenever you have a problem, just make a potion or something for it. So why do they have any problems, whatsoever? Teenagers can make love potions but these genius professors can’t make a “Banish Voldemort/Kanye West” potion and solve all the world’s problems? It’s like that kid who just makes up the rules as he goes along to ensure he can win. That’s magic. But there’s an even more annoying element to the Harry Potter films and books which has perplexed me ever since its mysterious absence…

#1---That Fucking Time Machine

In the third book and movie, that nerdy girl who’s hot when her hair’s straight, Hermoine (if I spelled the name wrong I do not care), uses a time machine after our heroes pretty much fuck up and some Griffin-knock off's neck gets a date with an axe. So, what do they do? They pull off the most ridiculous example of Deus Ex Machina ever invented: A time machine. They go back in time a few hours, fix everything, and are good to go.

So, let me get this straight, there’s a dark Wizard trying to kill everyone, everybody’s pissed at each other, everyone’s made mistakes which have led up to this point, and you’ve had a fucking time machine? And you’re just now bothering to tell us?

Time machines are the ultimate cop out, but even more so, here, because they apparently use it to solve only one problem. As far as I’m concerned, if you have a time machine, you have no problems. Ever. Just go back and fix them. You have all the time in the world. You have a fucking time machine! Hell, why not go back 20 years and stop Voldemort while he’s still a little emo kid? No? Too easy? Fine.

And how come it hasn’t been in any of the following books? Hermoine, obviously, was cleaning out her desk over the summer, found the time machine and thought to herself, “Hmm, there’s no way I’ll ever possibly need this again!” before discarding it next to her stacks of Pokemon cards and a Dreamcast. You’re right, Hermoine, you’ll never be able to use it again. You know, except for like every fucking thing ever.

A Conversation Between Steven Speilberg and Michael Bay

By now, you’ve seen Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and chances are, you have a lot of questions about just what the hell Michael Bay was thinking. So, after digging up some dirt, I have the answer to all your questions. In July, 2008, Michael Bay had a phone conversation with producer Steven Spielberg to discuss the script. Here lies some quotations of that conversation.

Steven: Okay script, Michael, but I have some questions.

Michael: AWESOME script, Steven. But go ahead...

SS: Okay, first of all what’s the deal with the rapping robots? MB: They’re awesome, Steve. That’s their deal. SS: Aren’t they a little racist?

MB: Well I just said they were awesome.

SS: That scene where Mikala revives Sam from a coma with a kiss, I mean, that seems a little cliché. Wasn’t that scene in The Abyss, like verbatim?

MB: Fist of all, Steven, I don’t know what “cliché” and “verbatim” mean, but I’ll assume it just means “awesome,” which is what this scene is. Plus you get to see sideboob, which is also awesome.

SS: Why do feel the need to include gratuitous shots of Devestator’s scrotum?

MB: Well, for one thing, it’s awesome. Second of all, it’s supposed to be symbollogical to my own scrotum. Duh.

SS: There’s a frat party scene in here and that in itself is fine, but it seems like it has a budget a few million dollars higher than most of the frat parties I went to as a college kid. Maybe you should tone it down a bit for realism?

MB: It is realistic. Obviously your college wasn’t as awesome as mine.

SS: Okay, Michael. Robot leg humping? Doesn’t that spit in the face of biology?

MB: What do you mean? How else would robots make babies?

SS: I just have one more question. How come only a Prime can defeat the Fallen? He doesn’t seem very strong… MB: Want to know why, Steven? Fuck you. That’s why.

"District 9" Review

It´s usually pretty easy to decide whether you like a movie. If you come out of the theater feeling good, then you saw a good movie. If you come out of the theater feeling like you just wasted money you could´ve used to feed your family for a month at today´s ticket prices, then chances are the movie you saw sucked. District 9 is a different animal, and for the first time in, I guess ever, I have no idea what to think.

Twenty-something years ago, aliens basically crash landed (though not really, since their ship still hovers above Johannesburg), and in an attempt to "save" them we (as in humans) placed them in what is essentially a Hooverville-esque shantytown known as District 9, where crime among the aliens, which look like something out of Oddworld (for those nerdy enough to enjoy very obscure video games) has escalated to the point where decent, normal humans just can´t take it anymore. Now, laymen will read that (or see that in the movie) and think that´s dumb, when the reality is that, in the case of first contact, it really seems like a more authentic depiction as to what would probably happen after the whole "Oh look, we made first contact!" thing wore off and we´re faced with the realization that we have to feed and house those damn dirty Prawns.

And that´s really all I should tell you. District 9 is a movie that´s best entered blindly. So as far as story goes, the film´s message will really lose its effectiveness if you know what the hell´s going to happen. And what happens is, in a strange, sick way, incredible.

For the first hour or so of the movie everything is shot cinema verte, as seen in the numerous trailers popping up all over the planet, but not in the same vein as Cloverfield or the Blair Witch Project, which essentially used the handycam style (at least this is my theory) to hide their miniscule special effects budgets so they could show you only flashes of the film´s title characters and then call it art, and we fall for it. D9, on the other hand, is shot like a documentary, with the aliens in full view all the time, and I must say the effects work on such a tiny budget (for today´s standards) is absolutely breathtaking. Yes, the aliens are pretty much 99% CGI, but you can never really tell. They blend into their environment as seamlessly as Bumblebee and Optimus Prime blended into their´s.

Realistically, the first hour of the movie is sort of what D9 is all about. Cute, but way too obvious allegory to apartheid. But the style is simply amazing. You never feel like you´re watching actors. Our "hero," Wikis, well we really do feel for him. I´ve never seen a movie that´s felt so organic and lifelike in its delivery, enough to make you feel like there really could be a giant ship hovering over South Africa right now as you read this.

But then, unfortunately, it decides to turn itself into a violent 13-year-old boy with daddy issues. And I will tell you, when I say violent, I´m talking splatter film on steroids violent. As the story progresses into its last act, the documentary-style is essentially ditched in favor of more traditional shots and is turned into a big goopy mess that´s as predictable as it is disturbing. I´ll put it to you this way (SPOILER ALERT): people, human beings, die. Lots of them. And not only do they die, they die quick, bloody deaths. There´s one thing when a human is killed in a movie, it´s another when a human, in essentially the same boat as our title character, is shot with a lightning bolt that sprays his body all over the walls, or has his head blown off, or his arm ripped off then stepped on by a mechawarrior thingy. There´s nothing wrong with killing people (don´t take that out of context) in a movie about aliens, that´s sort of expected, but it´s the dehumanizing, insignificant and violent ways in which these people die that makes the film so disturbing that you can actually feel yourself become very uncomfortable in the seat. I´m a big, tough, manly man, and even I was squeamish. But not from the gore, but rather from the sheer inhumanness of the whole thing.

But you know what? That´s the point.

And you can say that the movie simply ran out of ideas and turned into a snuff film, but the reality is that uncomfortable feeling you get is exactly how D9 wants you to feel. It exposes the flaws in humanity, making us the bad guys for the film´s final leg, while at the same time providing us with a fairly entertaining, somewhat cerebral outing.

So, is District 9 good? I don´t know. Last night, I would´ve told you I didn´t like it, but it´s one of those movies that just seems better when you sit down and reflect upon it. It´s easily one of the most interesting, most unique, most violent movies I´ve ever seen, which in itself merits that everyone should see it. Whether or not you will enjoy it is a different story. But that´s okay, because to me, District 9 isn´t really meant to be enjoyed. It´s meant to be interesting. It´s meant to be thought-provoking. It´s meant to be remembered. And it´s one I definitely will for a long, long time.

Score: 8/10

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" Review: Revenge of the Redundant

In 2007 middle Americans brandishing their hotdogs and gas guzzlers lined up in drones for a peek at Michael Bay’s giant robot orgy Transformers, making its wide release on none other than July 4th, only contributing to its symbolic representation of epitomized American cinema. The movie, based on Hasbro’s line of shape-shifting action figures popular when my dad was in high school, revolved around giant robots from a distant planet coming to Earth and blowing things up in pursuit of a cube that made them giant robots in the first place. A few hundred million dollars and legions of cocky teenagers declaring it as the “best movie ever made” later and it was a phenomenon whose financial success surely prompted it for a sequel to premier less than two years later at the whims of studio executives sipping on martinis with their pockets bursting at the seams with money while thanking God that average Americans are bloodthirsty enough to spend their own hard-earned cash to watch robots wale about for nearly 3 hours.

The first Transformers was decent fun if only because the special effects were so spectacular and seamless that it made you completely forget that the robots talked and had names like “Bumblebee” and “Ratchet” and tagged alongside a kid who would probably be delivering pizzas somewhere if it wasn’t for the Disney Channel. We’re pretty much at the point where effects really aren’t going to get any better and unlike the early and mid-90s movies really can’t get by via simply cramming their frames full of CGI explosions, so the only way for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, or since I cannot stand subscript I’ll simply refer to as T2 (which the film may like because it makes it sound like a much better movie starring Ah-nold) had any chance to best its predecessor, which shouldn’t have been difficult given its mish-mash direction, was to make it less stupid. Sadly, it doesn’t, and dives into depths of absurdity thought reserved only for obscure comic books and Spider-Man 3. The original got a free pass for its laughable dialogue and horrible story because it balanced on the line between dumb fun and just plain dumb, while T2 loses its balance and falls off that little tightrope into literary oblivion.

Let’s begin. It’s been 2 years since the events of T1 and the Autobots, who can be distinguished from the Decepticons by their metrosexual paint jobs, aide the governments of the United States and England, the cool countries, in fighting Decepticons (Deception, get it?) hidden on Earth. It begins in Shanghai where we learn that a Fallen will rise or something like that and then turns to Sam Witwicky as he goes to college, feeds his mom pot brownies, and meets a girl who seems like she wants to butcher him into a million pieces and eat his entrails while drinking his blood. He finds a shard of the AllSpark, a mysterious object that turns ordinary appliances into killing machines that engraves a message in his brain that he starts transcribing and blah blah blah.

If you frequent my reviews you’ll notice my penchant for making fun of Michael Bay’s lack of ability to put together a coherent plot and I’m here to declare that I’m done with it. T2 has given me a new respect for Bay as a filmmaker in that instead of fixing the mistakes of his first film he’s simply glorified them in his second while practically waving his middle finger at the camera and giving a big “Screw you” to the critics who hammered T1 for blowing too many things up. See, a bad filmmaker, like Uwe Boll for example, is a filmmaker who makes mistakes by accident and can never quite seem to understand what he did wrong. Michael Bay, on the other hand, knows exactly what he’s doing and is going to keep on doing it because he knows that Americans eat it up like crazy. He doesn’t give a damn what serious critics want in their films and only cares about what will please the masses, which usually involves monuments being desecrated. You can argue that Bay can’t put a decent story together to save his life but you can’t argue that he doesn’t know exactly what he’s doing, which is blowing things up as much as possible with beautiful cinematography on an epic canvas.

From a story standpoint, like T1, T2 crawls along using it as a vehicle for action. In most (good) films, the action revolves around the story. In Bay’s Transformers universe, however, the story is simply filler for the action, a vehicle to get from giant robot fight A to giant robot fight B, culminating at an effects-filled climax at Giza. And you know what? This is fine.

Lost in the complaints about the plot and the dialogue is the fact that this is a movie based on freaking toys. Taking it seriously would be like expecting the philosophical complexity of Christopher Nolan in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles which just isn’t going to happen. You have to go into T2 remembering that you’re there to watch giant Rubik’s cubes beat the crap out of each other, not Shakespeare.

The problem, though, is that Bay has a tendency to overdo it. Yeah, your robots look cool, even though they really haven’t improved much graphically from the last one except that now they’re covered in a layer of dust, but even so the battles and fight scenes are stretched out so long that you stop giving a damn about who wins and just want someone to die so it moves the hell on. Somehow, Bay finds a way to make giant robots beating the snot out of each other boring.

And then there’s the humans. Why do we even have them? I never watched the original Transformers show that capitalized on the success of the toys but I’m still fairly certain there weren’t gawky teenagers running around like whiney little bitches (Shia Labouef). Oh, wait, that’s right, the only reason the movie exists is to make money so Bay decided to throw in a heartthrob who makes my girlfriend swoon whenever he comes on TV and a girl that draws most men’s blood from their brains down into their pants. I’ve never really bought into the whole Megan Fox phenomenon, but whatever. She recently complained about being compared to Angelina Jolie. Who the hell whines about that? If someone wanted to compare me to, say, Brad Pitt, the last thing I’d do is complain.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is not a good movie. I can forgive poor storytelling in favor of awesome effects on occasion, but since this is the second film in what will probably be a gajillion the trick’s gone stale. What it is, though, is a decent movie. It’s honestly more of the same. If you’ve seen T1, then seeing T2 is a redundant experience. While it suffers from an intertwining plot that makes about as much sense as drunk mathematicians and contains more Transformers than anyone who’s ever been on a date can name it still manages to be fun to watch when it’s not being boring. It tries to get by using the same elements as the first: effects and cinematography, and it almost makes it. I can excuse length if the length has meaning, like King Kong or The Dark Knight, but I can’t excuse it when it’s simply the same freaking robots beating the crap out the same exact freaking robots. While this is fine and dandy for a few minutes, Bay doesn’t know when to stop and by the time the battle’s over, you’ve completely forgotten why they were fighting in the first place. The film is an exercise in showcasing the best effects ever known, besides maybe the aforementioned King Kong, but in an era where even student films are using CGI it just isn’t all that impressive anymore. It’ll make a ton of money and win over a lot of teenage and wife-beating fans, but the fact remains that T2 is just a shell, an expensive, shiny, hollow shell devoid of a heart or anything that makes any sense…or a good movie.

Also:
-Correct me if I’m wrong but I noticed that the Xbox360 Transformer from the first film wasn’t in this one…Red Ring of Death?
-When Peter Jackson finally comes to his senses and hires me to direct Halo, I’m hiring Michael Bay as my effects supervisor, but he will be banned from the writing room.
-Did the Queer Eye guys get a hold of the Autobots?

Score: 6.5/10

"Land of the Lost" Review: Like Matt Lauer, This Movie Can Suck It

First and foremost, I want to get something out of the way, just so you, the reader(s), can fully understand just how bad Brad Sildeberg’s, who made A Series of Unfortunate Events in 2004 (which I liked by the way) new take on a not-so-obscure kids’ fiction, aptly titled Land of the Lost is. Before even seeing it, many critics trashed the movie over the filmmakers’ decision to reimagine it as a comedy. “Why did they make it a comedy?” they cried. “It’s serious, they’re just going to make fun of it!” they bellowed. Well, get the fuck over it. It was a show about a man and his two kids who ran around evading retards dressed in lizard costumes and clay-mation dinosaurs with names like “Grumpy,” not to mention ape-men, crystals, your occasional random old crazy person and multi-dimensional vortexes that meant nothing to the 8-year-olds watching. The show is virtually a parody upon itself, like Scrubs or one of those interchangeable random generic ghost/cop shows on NBC every other freaking week. So yeah, I think it should be a comedy. And you know what? I think that most of the people who watched the thing back when it was on are probably in their 40s right now, so yeah, put Will Ferrell in it, who I personally think is a one-trick pony (which I’ll talk about later) but has a monetary track record on par with the Master Chief and God. So yes, to hammer it home, I think they made the right decision making Land of the Lost a comedy, so there, you know I’m not just going to jump on the bandwagon of every other movie critic in the world.

The problem, though, is that’s a fucking stupid comedy.

It’s one thing to have a stupid comedy when you have a simpler plot. Talladega Nights was a stupid comedy but people loved it because it was about a stupid guy with a stupid story about a stupid sport. But you throw in time vortexes and lost worlds and inter-dimensional crystal thingies and “tachyons” (which I originally thought were just made up to badly parody the word “tacky” but Microsoft Word isn’t correcting my spelling of it so maybe there’s more to it) and you have to, as a filmmaker, give it a little more depth, which Sildeberg simply doesn’t do. I know that when I’m watching a movie about lizard-men using crystals to open different dimensions, and with Will Ferrell in it, I shouldn’t be expecting the scientific depth of a Michael Crichton novel but come the fuck on! How the hell can someone who demonstrates himself to be a complete idiot throughout the movie create, in one night, a dimension-ripping device? How can a woman learn from a mysterious ape man from a land of the fucking Lost learn the ape language in about 5 seconds? How come the raptors, who make their obligatory dinosaur movie appearance, pass up the three protagonists to attack a goddamn ice cream truck? How can the Sleestaks possibly be a threat when they walk like constipated blind people trying to make their way to the mall bathroom after dropping their cane? And, finally, how the fuck can you be pooped out of a dinosaur, alive, about 30 seconds after being eaten?

Who wrote this thing? Oh, a writer for Saturday Night Live. That makes sense considering that, like the monuments scattered about the Dali-esque desert landscape, everything in the movie seems completely fucking random. There’s a scene where a dinosaur is blown to bits after swallowing a tank of liquid nitrogen followed shortly by Will Ferrell dancing across a lava pit singing show tunes and followed after that by a stoned Ferrell and McBride eating a giant cooked crab and sprinkling it with a totally random giant orange slice.

Knowing this you can start to get a sense for what kind of film Land of the Lost really is which is made even more evident by the sources behind its writing: a series of skits, hit and miss, jammed together into an incoherent mess of a movie. And when I say hit and miss, I mean more like barely scratch the surface and miss, because there really isn’t anything in the movie that “hits” in the traditional sense, there are just some scenes that are slightly more bearable than others. For example, there’s a scene in the desert where a T-Rex and an Allosaurus are chasing Will Ferrell around that’s actually somewhat enjoyable. And though you never get a sense that our heroes are in any danger, which is expected since the film dubs itself as a “comedy,” it still manages to be somewhat fun to watch. This, though, is complimented by a scene where Marshall, Will, and an ape-man named Chaka are whacked out on some primordial narcotic and contemplating kissing each other. The scene is basically a single continuous take that goes on for-fucking-ever! It’s arduous and painful to watch, just like most of the prolonged scenes throughout the movie’s running time. There are a ton of these, ranging from discussions over a miniature model to Ferrell sitting in an old car with his hands halfway down his pants. Seriously. It’s like that guy at the party telling the same fucking joke over and over again hoping that eventually someone will find it funny.

There are “homages” to the original series sprinkled throughout the movie but they lack any subtly whatsoever. Take Star Trek, another adaptation this year, and you’ll find that it’s written in a way that pays great respect to its source material, enough for any layman watching it to figure the references out. They never overdo it, and put the various homages and throwbacks into the script naturally. Land of the Lost on the other hand feels the need to repeat its callbacks to the original series. There’s a scene at the beginning where Holly says they’re going on a “routine expedition,” Will Ferrell repeated it, then she did again, then practically looked at the screen with a wink, and repeated it yet again. Then later, when they encounter the T-Rex (who, incidentally, may be the most likeable character in the movie), Holly makes sure to say, “Boy, he’s grumpy.” They could’ve easily stuck with that line and everyone would’ve gotten the memo, but no, she had to add on to the pit of intolerable idiocy, “We should name him Grumpy.” These are not just writing problems, these are directing problems. If you see something that sucks, cut it out! Later on, Ferrell, in a pointless move, actually has the audacity to sing the Land of the Lost theme song. Hmm, that’s not an attempt to put in an obvious homage, is it? Retard.

If there is a bright spot, many thought it would be Ferrell, but the one (the only one) who shines is Danny McBride, who is by far the only (human) character who actually makes us laugh. He seems to be the only one who realizes the kind of movie Land of the Lost should be in that he balances the perfect amount of seriousness and comedy and outshines Ferrell in nearly every scene.

I can also compliment the visuals but saying a movie has good visuals these days is like saying cars have power windows and Miley Cyrus isn’t a virgin, it’s just something that should go with the territory. CGI has pretty much made it so every movie has good visuals, even the shitty ones, though I will say that the cartoony style of the dinosaurs compliments the wonky (aka retarded) style of the movie. The landscapes and backdrops are also quite impressive, even if the desert gets a little monotonous after awhile.

And on to Will Ferrell himself. Personally, I’ve always felt he was a one-trick pony (like I said before if you actually have the patience/balls to read the entire review) who’s made a career from that staple brand of “comedy” involving dim-witted middle aged men that has legions of fans lining up to bathe his scrotum in saliva. I’ve never cared for it, but I’ll give it the credit it deserves considering everything he makes brings in money like a hooker with 3 vaginas. In Land of the Lost, though, the dim-witted middle aged man he supposedly always plays is spliced with a brilliant scientist and it just doesn’t work. Either he’s a fucking moron or a genius, and when you try to make him both you just end up epitomizing everything wrong with the movie.

LOTL is a movie that can’t really decide what it is. It’s too stupid for adults yet to vulgar for children. We go from talking about power crystals in one scene to giant vibrators in another. It feels like a kids’ movie but there are too many piss and dick jokes to really merit anyone seeing it under the age of 15 (well, these days, 12). This contrasts sharply with Sildeberg’s earlier film A Series of Unfortunate Events which, while dark, always knew that it was a movie for kids and acted as such. Land of the Lost on the other hand can sometimes border on disturbing, with velociraptors ripping the limbs off an ice cream man. So, based upon this, I’ve come to the conclusion that Land of the Lost is not a movie for kids, nor a movie for adults, but a combination of the two; a movie for child-like adults. And not the kind who still love Star Trek (2nd reference) and talk about it on computer forums while living in their mom’s basement, but the wild abusive boyfriend kind, the kind who drinks more beer than water and still goes to frat parties a decade after graduating. That guy. That’s who Land of the Lost is for. For the rest of us normal people, it’s an exercise on how to take $100 million dollars and the childhood memories of middle-aged Americans and turn it into an hour and a half of Will Ferrell’s jack-off material.

Also:
-Catch my very subtle televangelist joke?
-I think it’s time to retire velociraptors. Once you find out they were just prehistoric turkeys, they kinda lose their pizzazz

Score: 2.5/10

Updates coming

Sorry for the lack of updates. The problem with being an "independent" critic is that I don't get paid, so if I want to review a movie, I have to work 3 hours at $7 per hour to go see it. Also, I'm planning on putting everything on a dedicated site (not a blogspot site) sometime in the future, hoping that may increase my chances of actually getting paid for this one day. Anyway, new trilogy chop shop coming next week and a Land of the Lost review later today.

"Up" Review: Brilliant

Warning: Up is a movie that is best gone into blindly, for any information on the intricacies on the plot can seriously hurt its emotional value and as such the film as whole. So if you haven't seen Up, yet, don't read this review. Go see it. Now.

Once in awhile, a film comes along that gets a free pass because, not only were there little expectations for it, but in Up's case practically no expectations. If you weren't a movie guru, you probably didn't even hear about Pixar's latest film until recently. It didn't have the marketing of Wall-E, who had a seat at the NBA finals in 2008. Hell, Finding Nemo has its own fucking ride at Disneyland. Up, on the other hand, approached subtley, not with a bang, and as a result, it's not destined to make nearly as much money as previous Pixar efforts, but that doesn't mean it isn't one of the elites. It is. In fact, it may just be the best film this studio has ever churned out. And considering the source: Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, Monsters Inc, that is saying a whhhoooole damn lot.

Up is the story of Carl Fredericson, who, with his loving, outgoing wife, has lived a life of (apparent) missed dreams, as their lifelong dream of visiting Venezuela and having a house atop paradise falls is abruptly ended by tragedy. On the brink of losing his-their-house, he decides to finally set into action and take his precious Ellie to the land they both dreamt of, bringing along, inadvertently, a young wilderness explorer named Russel who essentially represents every under-loved child who isn't going around robbing convenience stores. The journey that follows isn't epic in scope. There are just a few characters, one big locale (that happens to be beautifully rendered), and no real one-liners, with the exception of one spouted by Dug, a dog with a collar that vocalizes his thoughts.

Wall-E, for all its wonders, was a film that basically got by through injecting its veins with concentrated cuteness, creating coos and awes that resonated with audiences everywhere. Not that Wall-E was bad, I just don't think it would've been as good if Wall-E wasn't so goddamn cute. Finding Nemo was incredible because of its animation, the underwater landscapes were breathtaking. And Toy Story, well, it was the first time anyone had ever seen anything like that before, so it has its obvious place atop the pantheon of CGI films.

Up, on the other hand, is anchored by its fabulous writing. It's an emotional, heart-wrenching, tear-jerking story that will, and not just because of innate sadness but its overwhelming sense of adventure and the joy you'll get from watching Frederison's house soar through the air near the film's climax. No, it doesn't have the cute robots, nor is it full of one-liners, and that's really more of a marketing problem than the film's. Note that this really isn't a kids' movie. While, obviously, it's a cartoon with talking dogs, the themes present throughout its runningtime are really more on par with adults.

Pixar's latest isn't Pixar's most extravagent. Kids will fidget. It won't make as much money. It doesn't have the cutsey characters. But it has the best story of all of them, and should be a serious consideration for Best Picture and not just Best Animated Film at 2010's Oscar ceremony. It'll keep you enthralled, make you care about the characters, and a final sequence involving a zoom-out of paradise falls will bring tears to even the biggest Pittbull-lovers eyes. Up isn't Pixar's biggest film, but it may just be its grandest.

Score: 10/10

"Terminator: Salvation" Review: My Name is John Connor, and I'm an Asshole

Terminator: Salvation is the "4th" film in the Terminator franchise that, believe it or not, began all the way back in 198-fucking-4. That's way before I was born. Like the humanoid machines featured in every movie, it seems to be a franchise that just won't fucking die, so as the years progress the studios will keep finding ways to suck its tits and in the interest of capital gain. In this film, because they really have nothing left to fall back on the from the "present day" Terminator movies, we get to see the legendary battle with Skynet as mentioned in all 3 previous films. John Connor is now in his 30s with a badass goatee and, strangley, feels the need to use the Bat-Rasp throughout the film's entirety.

McG, the director with the name of a rapper who really likes big macs, does a pretty good job with what he has to work with script-wise. From a narrative standpoint, T:S really doesn't do much, but I think that's the fault of the screenwriters. The story is there, somewhere, but it's not fleshed out whatsoever, and everything seems more like a vehicle for the explosively exhilarating action sequences. Those scenes are the meat and bones of T:S; McG handles these very well and every one (which take up about and hour and a half of the movie's two-hour running time) is well-constructed and keeps your eyes glued to the screen.

The story, the soul of any movie, is too cliched and riddled with contradictions and excess, unecessary sequences to really have any meaning. For example, in scene near the movie's beginning, Connor jumps into a helicopter to escape, only to have the helicopter lose control and twirl about for about 2 fucking minutes of your life before crashing right back down to the ground, in the same spot it took off from, thus negating any reason to have gotten in it in the first place. I can buy big, blood-thirsty robots in any movie, but for some reason I can't buy another sequence shortly after this one where Connor jumps into the ocean to enter the Resistance's HQ, and the next shot shows him soaking wet, glistening in a submarine. My BS-a-Meter went off so loud most people in the theater probably thought it was a cell-phone. All in all, T:S plays like a video game, with non-stop action that takes only brief pauses to progress the subpar story.

Christian Bale's John Connor sort of epitomizes T:S, whereas its head is so far up its ass with ego that you kind of want to see it die. Marcus Wright, the new character introduced in the film's opening, is a convicted murderer but he's still way cooler than John Connor, just because he's not a complete douche the whole movie. There's a "revelaton" about 2/3 of the way through the film about Marcus Wright, but considering the fact that they give it away in the damn trailer it carries no emotional gravity whatsoever. Also, Arnold's in it for a few seconds, and while neat, it really just hammers in the point that T:S is trying to so hard to be like its big brothers despite its conviction not to be that you realize halfway through it that your watching a (very expensive) fan film.

Terminator: Salvation uses its narrative as a crutch for action sequences, which, thankfully, it does quite well. McG can direct action, there's not doubt about it, it's just that the movie thinks it' soooo cool that it forgets to be cool. It runs for a clean 2 hours, but not a whole lot happens story-wise. Alas, it's fun; watching Marcus Wright, who seems like he gets more screentime than Connor despite Christian Bale's top billing, is a good character who the screenwriters really don't do justice with. There's a missed oppurtunity with him, to explore what makes people people and machines machines. But despite its predictability and hollow characterization, T:S succeeds at being that big summer action flick that we need this time of year.

Also:

-according to IMDB, this movie cost $200 million to make. Where?! Michael Bay's movie about big fucking robots cost $150 million and looks worlds better

-I feel like Gears of War was an influence, on, well, the whole movie

-I don't think Christian Bale actually ranted on the set, I think he was just rehearsing lines from the movie

Score: 7.5/10

"Star Trek" Review: This is what happens when nerds take steroids

So there's this thing I do whenever I want to see a movie but don't want to admit to anyone I want to see that particular movie: I take my younger siblings. See, as the oldest brother of a 10-year-old and a 7-year-old, I can basically always use the excuse, "They want to go see it, so I'm taking them." I used this most recently with Star TreK, J.J. Abrams' reboot of one of the most celebrated...and nerdiest...shows of all time. The series has become syonymous with geeks, 40-year-old virgins that live at home, guys with long beards and glasses who snort in laughter whenever someone refers to Captain Picard as Patrick Stewart and spend their days arguing over internet forums about which episode is the best and which alien is the hottest provided they have any interest in women.

J.J. Abrams, essentially, took all the geekiest elements of the Star Trek universe and injected them with Jason Giambi's special blend, because I'll tell you what, the most appropriate thing I could possibly say about this 2-hour thrill ride is this: it kicks Vulcan ass.

Star Trek is a movie that achieves a perfect balance between pleasing the old followers while updating it, bringing it into a more modern pethora of action film. See, as much as you watch it and see all the explosions, the effects, Eric Bana trying to act badass, you still are never lost from the feeling that this is Star Trek that you're watching. Abrams does a good job of never deveating so far from the source material that it becomes something else entirely (ala The Honeymooners) while at the same time bringing a fresh look.

I've never seen a single episode of Star Trek. Never. Not once. Maybe clips when I was a kid, but nothing I can actually remember. Yet, the miraculous thing, is that I recognize all the characters. It's so perfectly cast, so perfectly written, and so perfectly directed that even though the only familiarity with the original characters I have is what I know from pop culture references, I still know who everyone is. It never feels forced, though. Abrams doesn't point t the people and say, "Look! This is how he got started! See! I'm a genius!" Instead the characters and famous lines (set phasers to stun) just feel like part of the framework of the film and not needless, obvious homages.

If I do have a complaint, it's that much of the plot centers around time travel, and while I know that's a big part of the whole Trekkie thing, it gets really annoying at times, and (spoilers) feels more like an attempt to get Leonard Nimoy on screen rather than what the writers may have originally envisioned. Nonetheless, it's not enough to really scare you away from the expereince it has to offer from beginning to end.

Star Trek is a movie you need to chuck your ego aside for. You need to put away all your prejudices, especially you Star Wars fans, and go see it. It's got heart, it's got humor, it balances homages with originality, and there may never be a more perfectly casted remake, anywhere.

I know I usually try to be funny with my reviews, but it's hard to when a movie is so good. So I will say this, I went to a Saturday afternoon showing and there were at least 5 or 6 middle-aged guys in there by themselves, undoubtedly there so they can go home and argue about it with their friends online while sipping their mom's tea in her basement.

There you go. Now go see it. Because unlike all the Star Trek movies before it and all the nerdinss associated with it, Abrams version stands apart as something everyone can enjoy while never spitting in the faces of what came ahead of it. It boldly goes where no remake has gone before. (Except for maybe like, Batman Begins)

Score: 9/10

---------------------------------------------------

Another Take:

By Scott

[Scott is a regular guest blogger on Geoff Klock's popular blog Remarkable (geoffklock.blogspot.com), and for the sake of comparison I've posted his review, which can also be found o Geoff's blog.]

Star Trek was everything that X-men Origins: Wolverine was not; more than that, it has everything that an ‘origin’ movie should have that XMO: Wolverine did not: fun, emotionally engaging, beautifully paced. The characters have depth and beloved icons are brought to life in a way that is both faithful to the original interpretations and entertaining for new viewers.

I’m not a huge Star Trek geek, but I’m just familiar enough with the mythology to get most of the references. That being said, you don’t HAVE to get the references to enjoy the movie; they are done in such a way that they are just seen as another part of the story. Case in point, the film depicts a famous instance from Star Trek mythos, Kirk beating the supposedly unbeatable Kobyashi Maru simulation at Starfleet Academy. Fans of the series will immediately recognize the scenario and will love getting to see it played out on the big screen but, for those who aren’t fans of the series, it is an entertaining scene that further establishes and develops the character of James T. Kirk (none of the ‘and that’s the origin of that’ feeling of Wolverine).

In another case of Wolverine versus Star Trek, let’s take a look at how the two movies brought a fan-favorite character, known for having a particular accent, to life. Wolverine has Gambit. The actor playing Gambit cannot do a Cajun accent but he still tries. Also, he can’t act and he’s just sort of there so you can go “Oh, look! Gambit!” Star Trek has Simon Pegg as Scotty… ‘nuff said. (The guy playing Dr. McCoy was also great for that matter).

Most importantly, the use of time travel in the film is not merely a device for Leonard Nimoy to make an appearance; it actually serves an important purpose, not just in terms of plot, but for reinvigorating the franchise as a whole. In addition to explaining any continuity gaffs for the hardcore Trek geeks, it also allows the franchise to be rebooted while still acknowledging the original all within the same film. A pretty daring feat if you ask me. Also, it allows us to have a ‘new’ James T. Kirk; one who is, essentially, the same character we know and love but, due to events depicted in the film, experiences a different formative history which allows him to be a little darker, a little edgier, a little more modern.

All this and Scotty even gets to have a cute little alien buddy!

You might have heard that it's 'this summers Iron Man'... it's not... it's better!

New "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" Trailer

The second big subscripted movie of the year comes out in June, and Michael Bay is already working on ways to completely fuck it up. The first trailer came out a few months ago, and it was great. The film seemed to take itself more seriously, with a darker, more realistic and story-driven tone. When Bay realized, however, that this is how people were perceiving his new film, he took drastic action to solidify it as just another goofy, poorly written kids film with the violence of a grown up's film. So he released this new trailer, which starts out with Sam in college, Bumblebee upset about not being able to go, and (gasp!) egyptian symbols and, of course, a big old American flag.

For all those who were worried that Bay was actually going to make his new Transformers movie into the film the first one should have been, don't worry, you can rest easy tonight.

Trilogy Chop Shop: "Back to the Future"

[the following is a new feature I’ll be posting whenever I feel like it, like in between new movie reviews, where I’ll take a look at (significant) trilogies throughout the history of film. When I say significant, I don’t mean it has to be an Oscar winner, it just means that it isn’t one of those movies found in the $2 bargain bin at Wal-Mart (for example: Babe Island Adventures 1, 2, and 3 do not count (also they are not real movies))]

The film series that made Michael J. Fox into the Michael J. Fox and immortalized the Delorean has stood like a Spartan against the army of time. Visually striking in its set designs, tightly-written, and wonderfully casted, the Back to the Future series epitomizes the much-tried but often-failed science fiction comedy with one of the widest audiences of any film anywhere. Though it has its bumps in the road like any trilogy, it never quite wears out its welcome (ala Jurassic Park III, which I examined previously).

Back to the Future (1985)

The Good: Everything. Far ahead of its time, the first installment in the trilogy borders on perfection. Surely one of the best scripts ever written, the performances of every character involved, from Michael J. Fox to Crispin Glover to Christopher Lloyd, there may not be a more well-casted film with such great chemistry in the history of cinema. It’s smart, it’s funny, it’s charming, it’s one of the best movies ever made, period, that is destined to be an icon now and for decades, maybe centuries, to come.

The Bad: His mom was way hotter than his girlfriend. That’s not really bad, just an observation.

Score: 10/10
Avg. RT Score: 8.3/10

Back to the Future Part II (1989)

The Good: The writing is once again the key to the film’s charm. Biff is the primary antagonist, Doc is back and no one needs roads. The highly exaggerated future (which we now realize probably isn’t too farfetched whatsoever) is cartoony and fun to watch. The way the scenes and stories intertwine never get too complex while remaining smart and witty enough to not need a PhD in physics to understand it. Part II is often considered the “bad one,” but that’s really not fair. It’s the “least best” movie in the trilogy, and the least best always gets a bad rap (see: Return of the Jedi).

The Bad: While the effects are neat and not really meant to be taken seriously, they do go a little overboard. The darker tone of the film’s climax also makes it a little tougher to watch, not to mention there’s no Crispin Glover.

Score: 8/10
Avg. RT Score: 6/10

Back to the Future Part III (1990)

The Good: The series wraps soundly with what’s probably the most comedic installment in the series. The old west set designs are stereotypical yet wonderful, the inclusion of an old west Biff and an old west McFly family works better than it should. It’s lighter than the second, wittier, and far more charming. If you could only watch two films in the trilogy, make sure it’s the original and this one.

The Bad: The old west theme is gets a little bland at times, but it really doesn’t detract from what in the end is an excellent finale, maybe one of the best third movies ever made.

Score: 9/10
Avg. RT Score: 6.4/10

Trilogy Chop Shop: "Jurassic Park"

[the following is a new feature I’ll be posting whenever I feel like it, like in between new movie reviews, where I’ll take a look at (significant) trilogies throughout the history of film. When I say significant, I don’t mean it has to be an Oscar winner, it just means that it isn’t one of those movies found in the $2 bargain bin at Wal-Mart (for example: Babe Island Adventures 1, 2, and 3 do not count (also they are not real movies))]

In 1993, the world looked up in wonder as living dinosaurs rumbled across American theaters. Since then, the Jurassic Park franchise has been one of the most successful in the history of cinema…from a financial standpoint, anyway. I’ve used these films to examine first because they are, in my opinion, the perfect example of diminishment, whereas they get progressively worse as the series continues despite the epic, grandly nature of the original, which is to this day one of my favorite films of all time.

Jurassic Park (1993)

The Good: The effects, the effects, the effects. Despite a story that had little, if any, character development, Jurassic Park succeeded because, for the first time, the dinosaurs we saw on screen were so realistic they practically breathed. It’s rare that a movie is carried simply by its effects, but JP was so groundbreaking, that the eye candy it delivered was enough to captivate audiences even now. Add that in with the fact that from a story standpoint, it’s by far the best written, best acted, most complete film in the series, and you have a true modern masterpiece.

The Bad: The characters are just a vessel for the effects, but that really isn’t a bad thing.

Score: 9.5/10
Avg. RT Score: 7.2/10

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

The Good: See above. The Lost World ups the ante in the effects department, with more dinosaurs, more special effects shot, a gloomier, more prehistoric atmosphere and an awesome finale.

The Bad: It lacks in the story department. The science and wonder and drama from the original has all been lost. While the book was excellent, the film differentiates itself so much from it that the magic really goes away, and you’re left with a clichéd action adventure, but it has just enough brains to keep you interested, and truly feels like it belongs in the series.

Score: 7.5/10
Avg. RT Score: 5.7/10

Jurassic Park III (2001)

The Good: Sam Neil.

The Bad: For some odd reason, I’m guessing to make the movie more accessible and easy to make, the filmmakers decided to use a generic rescue mission story and figured that the effects, which at this point weren’t anything new, could carry it. Nope. JPIII is the outcast of the franchise. It doesn’t feel anything like a Jurassic Park movie and instead like a money magnet aimed at kids. If you have Jurassic Park III in your DVD collection, then you are not a fan of Jurassic Park, and as far as I’m concerned are spitting on Crichton’s grave.

Score: 1/10 (because I don’t like to give zeros)
Avg. RT Score: 5.2/10

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine": Just what you expected

There’s something that can be easily deduced about movies with subscript in its title. I’ll go ahead and name some and maybe you can figure it out: Punisher: War Zone, Dragonball: Evolution, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. I’m going to stop now, because if you haven’t discovered the pattern, then chances are you’re also illiterate and can’t read any of this, anyway. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, has a title that only the bottom rung of geeks (and by that I mean the top, elite geeks) will find acceptable, and is the first clue as to exactly what you’re getting when you sacrifice your hard-earned $10 and walk into the theater.

XMO:W, which I think could’ve benefited at shaking at least one stereotype of Marvel movies by just being called Wolverine (but of course that wouldn’t imply that Marvel is going to just keep making Origins movies and make tons of money…from geeks), is about the origin of everyone’s favorite, or at least most marketable, X-Man, Wolverine, played stoically by Hugh Jackman. He’s a nearly-immortal, self-healing muscle junky who, along with his brother, fights in both the Civil War and the Great War, all in the span of 10 minutes!

Okay, so here’s the meat of XMO:W’s problem: it seems to see itself not as a serious film or even respectable piece of cinema but simply a cash crop, and that’s a shame, because Jackman does a really decent job at portraying the clawed hero despite the script’s every attempt at putting him down. Every other character is a viable throwaway, some of them don’t even have dialogue. It’s a shame that the film advertising all of these X-Men and mutants only gives them a few frames of screen time before disposing of them, and it only hammers in the point that this movie isn’t really designed to please its audience, it's designed to get them to come spend money on it.

The story falls into more clichés than should be acceptable with superhero movies at this point. Yes, we all want emotion and drama with our heroes, these days, but XMO:W goes to extents that are so blatantly lame attempts at cheap-shotting us into feeling anything for the characters presented that it’s downright insulting sometimes. Consider that in with its short running time of just over an hour and a half, and I really don’t think you need any more proof that the movie’s only objective is to suck cash from your wallets at the whim of your children, who whine about wanting to go see it. Oh, did I mention that the effects aren’t much more impressive than a made-for-TV science fiction fare? Well they are, another cost-cutting move, no doubt.

By now you have the idea that XMO:W is a bad movie, but let me assure you that it’s not. But it’s not a good one, either. But nope, not quite decent. It’s right below decent, teetering in between that and “bad.” There really isn’t anything glaringly wrong with it, but it’s so rushed and convoluted in its story telling that it doesn’t take the time to get anything right. Logan's real name is James. His brother is Victor. They fight a lot. The end.

I can’t honestly call the film a failure. To me, a movie fails when it performs below expectations. XMO:W, though, is exactly what you expect it to be when you sit down to watch it. It’s full of action (though cheesy action), and I’ll be damned if Hugh Jackman doesn’t give it his all. So, despite its poor, poor direction, its few saving graces are enough for it to proudly be christened the King of the Movies with Subscripts. Congratulations.

Score: 5/10

2008 in Review

I know this is extremely late, but I've just finished about every major movie in 2008, allowing me to come to legitimate conclusions.

Biggest Surprise

Twilight
“one of the rare films that seeks to outdo the expectations set before it, positive and negative, and succeeds grandly in both”

Biggest Dissapointment

Quantum of Solace
“Instead of the human element that made Casino Royale so good, we’re left with a short, brutal, mindless action flick”

Worst Movie

The Spirit
“achieves a nearly impossible feat of being beautiful to look at it, while simultaneously painful to watch”


The Top 5 Movies of 2008

5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
“…a bio epic, a look at a very unique person’s life that doesn’t outstay its welcome and will make you wonder just how amazing of a film it might’ve been without its numerous failures”

4. Wall-E
“…a funny, incredibly smart, touching story that works on a small scale that incorporates beautiful writing with extravagant animation that pushes the limits of human imagination”

3. Kung Fu Panda
“...it manages to take an old formula and make it fresh, funny, and wildly entertaining. Not as thought-provoking as Wall­-E, but a lot more fun"

2. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
“ultimately proves and achieves is that a great comedy can also just be a great movie”

1. The Dark Knight
“nearly flawless”