Review of "Choke" (2008)

Choke (2008)


Freak Flag Flying High

I first took notice of actor, Sam Rockwell, back when he was a security officer named "Guy", but I didn't fully realize his potential until George Clooney's directorial debut, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, put him in the shoes of TV icon, Chuck Barris. His rendition of Zaphod, from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2006), was unforgettable and made an average movie more enjoyable. Now he plays the lead in the movie version of the book (of the same name) by Fight Club author, Chuck Palahniuk.

The Q88 rush hour bus.

Victor Mancini (Rockwell) is a historical re-creationist by day. By night he visits his ailing mother (Angelica Houston) in the home and/or attends sex-addict group support meetings to get sex . You see Victor did not have a normal childhood. His mother came and went, leaving him mostly in foster homes. At the same time, his father's status is quite vague. Because of this, he does not form any meaningful female relationships. He just has sex. Every woman he sees, he envisions having sex with (be it old, ugly or fugly) or having had sex with them. He cannot turn it off. It is one of his coping mechanisms.

It's not what you think. Pervert.

The other is related to the title of the movie (& the book as well); choke. Victor intentionally chokes himself (usually on food and in a public place like a restaurant), with the intent of selecting a "Good Samaritan" to save him. This instills good feelings in the savior, which Victor manipulates to supplement his income.

The movie seems to follow the path of the book, as the narrative revolves around several months of Victor's life as he is trying to deal with the increased deterioration of his mother's condition. This is juxtaposed with flashback's from his childhood. Any comedic qualities derived from the movie is mostly dark in nature, but is still funny. If you frown upon nudity, sexual situations or bad language, then you probably picked the wrong movie. The movie alternates between serious and comedic, but ultimately I think it is meant to be proverbial in scope. Sam Rockwell is the star of this movie. He has the charisma and personality to do great things and can keep something interesting based on only his performance.

Thomas Jefferson's plantation was always fun for everyone.

The message is not a new one. Hunter Thompson wrote about it. We are all freaks in one way or another. Some people fly their "freak flags" while others live in fear of what others will say. Not "flying the flag" or being yourself is the cage/bonds. To truly be "free", we must fly our "freak flags" high, so others can see. Acceptance and reciprocation by another, makes us not freaks but "normal". So fly high, my brothers and sisters.

You can find the rest of the screen shots here.

Review of "George Carlin... It's Bad for Ya! (2008)"

George Carlin... It's Bad for Ya! (2008)

The Transformed Man in Comedian's Purgatory (a.k.a. "Heck")

George Carlin is probably my favorite comedian. I have seen so many of his specials and even had the opportunity to see him perform live. He had a certain cynicism that always appealed to me. His last 2 specials (Life is Worth Losing especially and Complaints and Grievances) have lacked a certain spirit and content. George appeared overweight, old and tired (not to mention coming out of rehab). "I SAID NOT TO MENTION IT"! Anyway. Life is Worth Losing was especially tragic as he was overweight, disgruntled, coming off of rehab (there we go again...) and extremely unfunny. If there was a way to feel sorry for a comedian without heckling him off stage, George achieved it with Life is Worth Losing. It is as if the New Millennium and Post 9/11 America was trampling George's spirit. The bs had become too large to manage.

The comeback is partially successful with It's Bad for Ya! This special is the transmutation completed. George is no longer trying to rekindle his glory days. He is in full acceptance of his age, being old and dealing with the looming prospects of death. He has accepted being a crusty old SOB and is relishing in it. This is better than his previous specials, yet far from Jammin' in New York. It is a little tragic. His observations are not cutting edge anymore and seem more Andy Rooney than Lenny Bruce. George isn't George anymore. He is no longer criticizing us but is the man in the high castle pointing out how things were and how dissimilar modern life is.

This is an improvement over the previous two specials, but George does not, as of yet, recoup his old glory (if ever). He has been reduced from critical social and political stinging commentary to mostly personal peeves. When he goes political, he still has something to say. It is heavily derived (especially if you have seen any of his previous work), but it still works somehow, as opposed to his random rantings which lack a certain relevance outside of the baby boom generation. The last 25 minutes is the best this special has to offer.

For now I will worship the Sun and pray to Joe Pesci that George can recreate himself as a cutting edge septuagenarian. It's a 50/50 chance. Life seems to have become more tedious for George and his "art" is now his life. This is a step in the right direction from his previous 2 specials, but is far from his old self. Where does he go from here? He may never recoup but maybe he can further metamorphosing/refine this new ornery old man routine. Heres to hoping for 7 more words you can't say on TV or at least a windmill he can handle.

Review of "Across the Universe (2007)"

Across the Universe (2007)

All you need is love...... sort of.

It would be nice if all you needed in this world was love to make things work out, but this isn't an ideal world and other things are required (dedication, persistence, perspiration and sacrifice to name a few). About the same could be said of this film. It is more of a musical than a film. It is a filmed musical. Think of Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge, except all the music is from the Beatles.

If this film came out sometime in the 70's or 80's, it may have had more relevance. As it stands it is more than 30 years removed from the end of the Vietnam War. The current political situation is obviously paralleled in the film, but in a rather tertiary way. The movie, however, seems to deal more with relationships in the backdrop of that time and one in particular (Lucy and Jude).

Jude is a Liverpool welder who travels to American to find his dad. He meets Max, who leads him to Lucy and the rest of the cast through "random" chance. The progression of the story is rather predictable : move to New York, subcultural references, drugs and the psychedelic, the War, anti-War movement, music, break-ups, reconciliations,etc. Throughout all this is the music. All Beatles all the time. There's also some nice cameos by Bono, Joe Cocker, Eddie Izzard, Salma Hayek and even Cousin Brucie.

The bottom line is though this film is quite flawed and the characterizations could be called paper thin, this is a stylized love story psychedelic movie musical. It would probably be better if Tommy, Jesus Christ Superstar, Hair and other psychedelic experiences didn't already exist. At the same time this film does not contribute in any way to the third wave of psychedelia. Though heavily derivate, predictable and depthless, I did not hate it, surprisingly. I found it strangely enjoyable.

I can't say I recommend this movie to others, especially since a movie like Once (which was highly recommended by so many and made Devin of CHUD cry) I found quite dull, underacted and generally underwhelming. I say if you liked Moulin Rouge and you don't hate the Beatles, then you should give this a try. Maybe all we truly need is more Beatles based films?

Review of "Harsh Times (2005)"

Harsh Times (2005)

A walk on the wild side, with Christian Bale

This movie may give you more deja vu than Deja Vu (review coming soon). If you have felt this way while watching this movie then you have probably already seen Training Day. While this is David Ayer's directorial debut, he wrote, produced, acted and even performed stunts in Training Day.

The movie revolves around the shenanigans of two long time friends, who are reunited in the streets of their old stomping ground, the streets of Los Angeles. Jim (Christian Bale) is a returning Army ranger looking for a job. Mike (Freddy Rodríguez) is also looking for a job to appease his girlfriend (Eva Longoria). Together they spend their days getting high, getting loaded and generally slacking off. They also end up committing some petty crimes.

The conflict in the movie arises when they meet up with their past, acquaintances and their baggage. Jim is a hard headed, hard case with more trauma from his service than he is willing to admit. Mike is in a transitional period and easily influenced. Tough decisions are hard to make and it is easy to procrastinate. We all do it.

Much like Training Day, you see the situation deteriorating quickly. For most of the movie you are expecting something bad to happen, but each postponement makes the movie that much more interesting. I did not expect much from this movie. I was expecting another "Sentinel" or "SWAT". Even though the ending is quite anti-climactic, brisk, and mostly predictable, it did not deter from the movie.

The perspective of the movie is heavily masculine, with the feminine characters being mostly man-handled. Even as a successful lawyer, Sylvia (Mike's girlfriend) is still branded. Even though woman are apparently secondary to men, they are somehow responsible for holding everything together. This is more likely a reflection of the attitude of the "street" than of the director himself.

It is finally nice to see Christian Bale laughing, getting high and drunk in a movie. He then reverts back to the brooding, dark character he is known for. He is quite due for a comedy part. One in which he is not the straight man. I think it would vastly improve his perception. Overall, the movie is a good first step. I am eagerly awaiting to see what else David Ayer can pull off. I know he can do Los Angeles inner city. But what else can he do?

Review of "The Hitcher (1986)"

The Hitcher (1986)

Never pick up a Dutchmen in the desert, even if you are falling asleep.

80's meat, C. Thomas Howell, is a glorified delivery boy named Jim Halsey. He's transporting the car he's driving, to it's owner in San Diego, California. While in the desert, he picks up a rain-soaked hitchhiker in the darkness, Rutger Hauer. The hitchhiker is initially quite uncommunicative, but quickly turns into dubious comic, with a minuscule switchblade (and asks questions like; "Do you want to know what happens to an eyeball, when it get punctured?"). Things become more complicated when the authorities get involved and believe Jim to be the mass-murdering psychopath. This is yet another movie I saw on Cinemax and the first with the incomparable, Rutger Hauer. It is also one of the only movies in which Jennifer Jason Leigh does not go partial or full nude.

The first 12 minutes is a delicate blend of darkness, tension building and serves as the introduction to this cat and mouse thriller. These initial 12 minutes, creates the mood of the movie and sets Rutger Hauer as the deadly, yet compellingly charming psychopath. Much in the same way Jigsaw of Saw, believes in the idea of sacrifice as a growth mechanism, so does the hitcher. This is in direct contradiction to the naivety of Jim. In someway I believe their relationship can be described as master/pupil or the physical expression of how experience overwhelms ideology.

What was I thinking?? This is an 80's movie with a whiny, C. Thomas Howell. There isn't that much depth. What there is plenty of is running, car chases and gun fights. Now rinse and repeat. By the third act, the movie loses most of it's steam and the ending (though quite action oriented and enjoyable) never captures the energy level of the first part of the movie. The backdrops consist of the aforementioned desert and also include gas stations, police stations, abandoned gas stations and miles of highway. You definitely get the impression that you are on your own out there.

This is one of those films that does not require much energy to enjoy and yet multiple views does not harm. I would rate this movie at a 3 shot minimum. The first should be drunk when Jim nearly falls asleep at the wheel. The second toast belongs to Jim's initial (and short-lived) victory. The third drink should be empty by the infamous "truck-trailer" decoupling scene. In conclusion, always listen to your mother and then ask yourself and others one question; "You gonna tell me where you're going ?"

Review of "42nd Street Forever: XXX-Treme Special Edition (2007)"

42nd Street Forever: XXX-Treme Special Edition (2007)

A Time Release Adult Capsule

If you haven't read my review of 42nd Street Forever Volume 1, you really should. This is volume 3 of the series and continues the movie trailer montage, except it switches to covering grindhouse's next door neighbor (namely porn).

Before the videocassette, DVD and the Internet, porn was viewable only in seedy theaters (usually next to grindhouse theaters). Because they were theatrically released, meant that there needed to be an actual story to keep you in the theaters after the money shots. With the 1980's also came the assembly line, cookie cutter porn. The story was no longer important and took a backseat to cheaper (and more frequent) productions, relying mostly on physical attributes. The 80's signaled the death of the "story porn". For reference, Boogie Nights shows this same transition.

Volume 3 compiles the trailers from 46 movies, made during the late 70's and early 80's. This would include cheesy 80's hair, clothes and music. Whatever happens, don't get caught humming the music while in line at the post office. The talent level (no pun intended) is quite high here. Names such as Harry Reems, Seka, John Leslie, Hyapatia Lee, Jamie Gillis, Stacey Donovan, Mike Horner, Nina Hartley, Ron Jeremy, Annette Haven, Peter North, Ginger Lynn, Joey Silvera, Vanessa Del Rio, John C. Holmes, Taija Rae, Randy West, Amber Lynn,Eric Edwards, Chelsea Manchester and Richard Pacheco, should be quite familiar to many. What is even more amazing is that some of them had actual acting ability and gave the movies a campy, fun (and yet absurd) quality. Some were highly educated and others, still, had actual acting training. Imagine what they could have done with a good script, a good director and the possibility to keep their clothes on.

The trailers are very graphic and include full on sex and nudity, so don't show this at the local PTA meeting. It is the 80's so you can expect butcher-like closeups, tan lines, bad hair cuts and hedges in full bloom. I would give this a 2 (of anything distilled) on my "shot scale". That is just to relax you, however. It is also much better to watch this in the appropriate company of others. These trailers are a time capsule of a bygone era. Recreate the experience by sharing with others, but please try and keep the Pee Wee Herman to a minimum.

Review of "Rocky Balboa (2006)"

Rocky Balboa (2006)

Hey, Tommy !! I didn't hear no bell.......

This is a segue into a tangent from Commando.

We can only hope, at this point, that Sylvester Stallone has heard the final bell and will be retiring Rocky. It is safe to bet that this is the last Rocky movie. The only exceptions would include 1) Sylvester Stallone as producer/director/writer but not actor; 2)Stallone in a cameo role (a Rocky movie where the namesake of the movie is a cameo role is either sheer madness or sheer brilliance) or 3) Sylvester Stallone in Rocky Ho-tep. Bruce Campbell as Sylvester Stallone, might work, with the right script. Maybe Rocky could fight Apollo Creed-Zombie?

So in light of the above, this is the farewell of one Rocky Balboa. The first movie was the introduction of the blue collar, Philadelphia everyman of Rocky Balboa, who got to live out the "American Dream". It is the quintessential sports movie, yet it isn't and even still, is much more. The second movie is in my opinion the worst of the series because it is essentially the first movie with a happy ending. It did have Rocky reading out loud and learning to read, which is funny. The third and fourth movies are products of the 1980's. Like the 80's, they are a bit gaudy, self involved, bright and very, very hyper (sniff here please). Also Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) has been replaced by Clubber Lang (Mr. T) and Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren). After returning from abroad, the fifth movie is essentially Rocky down and out in South Philadelphia. We get back to Rocky's roots and to his legacy. This movie fits very nicely in this chronology.

This movie basically mirrors or is parallel to the first movie in everything except time. We return to all the people and places (that still remain) from his youth. There are some differences. Adrian is now sleeping with Apollo Creed. She's dead Jim!! No Talia, No Problem!! Paulie gets into the action by getting fired and becoming an angry drunk in the process. Rocky even manages a disturbingly uneasy pseudo-relationship with a woman that could be his daughter, in a Gump sort of way.

Rocky, himself, has turned into a Forrest-Gump-Spouting philosophical slab of aged and tenderized beef. He has his own restaurant, in which he walks around and entertains the patrons in true Mickey Mantle-like style. His relations are still strained with his son from the previous movie. This time around even Stallone's son did not want to replay Rocky's son (see Sage Stallone). Rocky (and/or Stallone by proxy) has not aged well. Rocky has become a prime example of too much steroid use and the recipient of too many blows to the head. If he didn't walk around, he could have been mistaken for an animatronic wax statue at Madame Tussauds.

In all honesty, the first time I saw this movie I couldn't help but feel as if this was trying to be a caricature of itself. Stallone's leathery skin and speech is enough to scare anyone into a laugh. There is a point where that changes. It took just one little speech to change it. I loved the speech Rocky gives to his son about life as not being how hard you could hit, but about how many hits you could take and keep going. Up to this point, the movie had been a comical look at Rocky. To be quite honest, all of the Rocky movies, with the exception of the first, have had thick layers of ham and cheese, inducing laughter in the process. Even though Rocky is older, doesn't mean he is any less funny. The speech epitomizes Rocky and salvages the movie.

The best part is that the actual fight is not the crescendo climax of the movie. This is the first Rocky movie in which his opponent is unimportant and unimpressive. Rocky's opponent isn't Mason Dixon (Antonio Tarver), but time itself. The moment the bell rings is both the triumph, victory and end of Rocky. It was the speech, however, that allowed me to see this movie a second time, for perspective. The second time around wasn't as funny, yet it still worked. It proves this isn't a one-trick pony sent to the glue factory. It isn't the best in the series, but it is a good send off for an icon. Hopefully, he stays there.

Review of "The Hidden (1987)"

The Hidden (1987)

"An explanation is not going to help", replied the movie.

Even though the title may imply otherwise, the plot and plot twist is reveled to us from the beginning. This is an action/science fiction mash up from the 80's, starring Lynch alumni Kyle MacLachlan, Michael Nouri and B-movie diva Claudia Christian. This sounds like the perfect cast for a Tarantino movie, just add Sizemore or Michael Madsen. Danny Trejo (who makes a cameo here) will be the common link. It is definitely a hidden gem for those that know about it.

I can remember watching this movie on Cinemax in the middle of the week, around the early afternoon. It was always in the 3:30 - 4:00 PM slot. It is not overly ambitious, yet the end product has infinite replayability. The soundtrack is a combination of stock 80's music (which sounds cheesy, catchy and quite indicative of the period) and some synthetic alien sounds. I can compare this movie to Alien Nation, I Come in Peace, Dead Heat, Total Recall, the Running Man, the 6th Day, My Best Friend is a Vampire (another catchy 80's soundtrack) and even the Peacemaker (which strangely enough has a similar plot, just a different type of alien). The main elements throughout all of them is the buddy cop/tag team concept, occurring in unusual situations (for example, with aliens, postmortem, clones,etc). They are a somewhat of a guilty pleasure, but still not as guilty as after you have downed 3 double shots of Southern Comfort, before watching this movie (my new rating system). While the shots are not necessary for the pain or enjoyment of movie, it does pass the time.

This is classic good guy, bad guy. There are cops and crooks. The twist is that it's a revenge/duty story about aliens (another world and not just across the border) in L.A. These aliens, like fast cars (Porsches and Ferraris), loud music, women and money. "Who doesn't?", you're thinking. It's the 80's, when sealing the deal involved a drink and a snort. The concept of taking by force is not lost on the aliens. The plot is based in the detective procedure, in which a lot of gunfire appears to be a requirement. The progression of the plot is relatively brief, albeit logical (if not a bit visor-vision) and entertaining.

I would attempt to figure out if there is any social commentary hidden in there, but who am I kidding. Thats why you were watching this movie on Cinemax, Tuesday afternoon, right after that nap on the coach. You aren't looking to relish in the human condition by empathically connecting to some talk show host. You want to be woken up by the sheer visual bloodlust and auditory force of the movie. Thankfully this movie has enough of that or rather enough gas to get you there comfortably and as quick as possible. The views are passable. It is perfect on lazy Saturday/Sunday afternoons as well.

*Use with caution, as the results have a risk of dependency.

Review of "Come Rubare la Corona d'Inghilterra (1967)"

Come Rubare la Corona d'Inghilterra (1967)

a.k.a. Argoman

Aren't hovercrafts great ??

Roger Browne is Argoman (a.k.a. Sir Reginald). A Bruce Wayne (a.k.a. Batman) like character, without the brooding and fighting crime. Think of Roger Browne living the playboy lifestyle in a wrinkled Roger Moore mask. The differences are also very striking for each of their alternate personas. Batman is an athletic, crime fighting inventor (or at least what he's evolved into). Argoman is a telekinetic pervert who manipulates people, governments and especially women, for the sake of "world peace". While Batman wears the blue/black outfit, black cape and generally looks like bat, Argoman is dressed in sunshine yellow (with black underwear), black hood with Cyclops' red visor and a black cape with red velvet lining. Batman had Gordon as his official contact, while Argoman indirectly uses an uptight Scotland Yard inspector. Both have swinging bachelor pads. Batman generally doesn't work outside of Gotham City (not counting his work in the JLA), while Argoman mainly focuses on global problems. Batman's nemesis would have to be the Joker, while Argoman has Jena Belle, Queen of the World. I don't think Batman would be making out with Joker or that Joker would be telling Batman how he'd want him inside of him. Batman's services are not available for purchase, while Argoman works not for money nor gold, but instead for historical one-of a kind museum pieces. But then again this isn't Batman. It is Argoman.

Now to elaborate. Batman has no special talents. Argoman is a telekinetic. A telekinetic Samson, with the power in his sperm. When he loses it, he loses his power for exactly 6 hours afterwards. Argoman is no Jedi knight. Celibacy is not the answer and technically this was filmed in the "swingin' sixties. This leads to some interesting theories. For example, is his libido somehow connected to his power? Does he need to wait 6 hours before he can have sex again or is it just the powers that need a recharge? On a tangent, this could be a perfect candidate for the plot of a comedy/adult movie (is NC-17 still around??). Orzasmo II : Orgasm in Paradise ?

This is truly an inspiring performance by Roger Browne (a.k.a. Roger Moore's older, older brother). It was one drop kick away from completely channeling William Shatner. Are you thinking of William Shatner playing Batman or maybe Adam West? Yeah me too. I wonder if Shatner was separated at birth from his older, English brother?

If you liked Austin Powers, James Coburn's Derek Flint or even Dean Martin's Matt Helm, then you'll like this spy who's also a superhero. It is very much like a watered down and sweetened version of Bava's Diabolik. This is light sauce, nothing heavy here. The music is upbeat and typically 60's "acceptable" pop instrumentals. This occurs in all scenes, thereby negating the chance that any of this is suppose to be serious. It is visibly tough in cheek on the obvious parody. Its not as overt as Austin Powers, but it is definitely there.

It is quite formulaic in story and layout. The soundtrack and visuals are mostly forgettable. There is nothing original about any of it, yet it just works somehow. It is enjoyable and campy enough to not even notice how the time flew by. I would have given this movie a higher score but the sheer amount of Roger Browne de-robements left me much depleted and nauseous. I guess he used the Shatner clause in the contract which most likely stated that he must act in at least a third of the movie in his robe. The studio agreed when they realized how much money they were saving on the costume budget (S&M henchmen not included). Argoman does make it up to us, by showing us an interesting array of modified pick up techniques involving telekinesis, a bow, a suspended bed, a Rolls Royce, being rescued from a robot holocaust, The Price is Right and a phone call . Was that shoot the red or the white? I guess I have to watch this again.

Review of "Ikarie XB 1 (1963)"

Ikarie XB 1 (1963)

The Undiscovered Country....

Somewhere between the Outer Limits and Star Trek lies this little science fiction gem from the former Czechoslovakia. This isn't I. Robot or that type of science fiction, which is Asimov wrapped up in a shiny steel and glass box. This is the actual story and not just the wrapping paper. It proudly carries on the tradition started by Forbidden Planet and This Island Earth, even though its not as exciting. It is actually more like the Magnetic Monster and the Outer Limits. This is science fiction done in crisp black and white. The screen may not be vivid, yet the special effects have an ethereally surreal quality. Mix that in with the futuristic Shostakovitch-like score and we have a compelling and eerie trip into the unknown.

The excitement and glory that comes from living and exploring space (Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.) is minimized in the movie. We get the basic day to day activities of the crew of the Ikarie, on its 28 month (15 years pass back on Earth) mission to our closest solar system, Alpha Centauri. We also get the dangers and rewards of hurling ourselves into the vast darkness.

It is the 22nd Century and we are out in the galaxy searching for life. The crew is comprised from a co-ed international pool. We never get to see Earth, yet we get a glimpse of what humans are like from the interactions of the crew (work, entertainment, nutritional intervals, exercise, reproduction and crisis). This is a future full of video screens, blasters, personal transmitters, turbo lifts, artificial gravity, Beatnik-like futuristic dancing and even Nike light up magnetic boots. This is the perfect/classical example of the sci-fi antithesis to Idiocracy. Humanity will improve with time.

The future is bright, shiny and worth waiting for. Man fixes the malaise of his species. We are never shown anything more lethal than a hand blaster, when it comes to weapons. On their mission, they encounter a perfectly preserved space relic from an Earth expedition of the 20th century. Let's just say our predecessors had very little nice things to say about us. Let's not forget that the 20th century contained two world wars, numerous genocides, the birth and use of the the atomic bomb.

One would also assume that a movie made in a Soviet influenced country would contain a certain amount of Communist and Pro-Soviet propaganda (for example, Planeta Bura). Thankfully this is all missing. About the biggest commentary comes from the critique of our 20th century counterparts. I found the only anti-capitalist message in the writing on the Earth relic. Everything inside is written in English, the ship was fully loaded with nuclear warheads and the the crew turned on each other. And even this critique is more of a jab at our collective selves then at full fledged opposition to capitalism.

If you are looking for epic space battles for the fate of the universe, look elsewhere because the crew kills absolutely no living thing. If you want 90 minutes of Georges Méliès mixed with Jules Verne, then you have found the perfect movie. I can easily see this movie as an influence on Kubrick's 2001, Rodenberry's Star Trek, Lucas' Star Wars and even Irwin Allen's Lost in Space. We even have a robot. He's definitely not as cool nor as good as Robby the Robot nor the robot that constantly saves the Robinsons.

We named him Patrick. Patrick the Robot. RIP. (Pour out some alcohol for the robots that aren't with us anymore).

Review of "Deep Rising (1998)"

Deep Rising (1998)

Beyond the Poseidon Adventure and Leviation, like two ships meeting on the ocean

Stephen Sommers tests the waters, pre-Mummy, with this cheese-ladened romp on the South China seas. This is not a barren, lifeless ocean but one brimming with celebrities : Treat Williams, Famke Janssen, Djimon Hounsou, Wes Studi, Kevin J. O'Connor, Jason Flemyng and Cliff Curtis. Oh yeah, and there's a creature as well. It is some monstrous leviathan that grew out of the mysterious and deepest depths of the ocean.

A boat full or mercenaries, a cruise ship, a prolific thief, the ocean and a monster. Stephen manages to combine all these elements into an enjoyable romp. This movie has much of the same elements as some of Stephen's other movies - The Mummy, the Mummy Returns and the Scorpion King. There are elements of a heist, a survival horror and even some comedy. It also has action. It has graphic deaths. It has a somewhat skewed logic. And there is the campy humor. Much like Stephen's other movies, the cast seems to display a lot of chemistry. They work well together. The movie also doesn't drag. The pace of the movie is quick and enjoyable. I especially enjoy the comic timings of Kevin J. O'Connor (the multi-religious Beni from the Mummy).

This isn't a movie full of deeper meaning and metaphors. This is just a fun movie. If you enjoy movies like the Mummy, Evil Dead, Phantasm and Shaun of the Dead, then you will most likely enjoy this. Until then, just try to figure out how to get a fish in and out of that bottle.

Review of "300 (2006)"

300 (2006)

"Sin City"-like Miller adaptation. Relatively close to source material. It's nice.....

I saw 300 last night. I could have written something last night, but I wanted to let my limbic system soak all of what I had seen. This morning, while watching a rather swashbuckling maneuver performed by a certain young Jedi on a desert barge, I realized something. There is a condition present in most homo sapien males. I like to call it "Pretty Woman syndrome". I do not know the correct medical term, but it is present. Pretty woman syndrome can be defined by the subconscious desire to reconcile the "life partner" as both a friend, confidant, mother,etc. and the sexually aggressive and insatiability of the "whore". How does one reconcile these two ideas, without having one or the other, but both? Hollywood and the movies have perpetuated such ideas and fantasies. In Pretty Woman, a man "rescues" a prostitute with a heart of gold and turns her into a lady. Star Wars reconciles the princess to slave girl back to princess, in a strange turn of movie moral and symbolism. I know what you are thinking and yes I know it's his sister and thats the symbolism.

I also just realized that Pretty Woman was geared toward females, so there must be some cultural/feminine aspects to my theory as well. The idea of ultimate redemption and cleansing. Past sins can be erased. This isn't just a male fantasy. I also realized that the ultimate realization of said fantasy for males is having two partners, each with their respective sexual role.

You are probably wondering what that has to do with this movie. It is simply the first thing that resonated immediately after letting 300 soak into my subconscious and sleeping mind. It is the idea that movies provide, project and proliferate desires. 300 serves as the carnal blood lust that "modern living" tries to suppress and diminish (i.e. - Fight Club logic). It stimulates that desire.

The story is the aboriginal template of a few-against-many scenario in a no-win-situation (Gladiator, Conan and the Kobayashi Maru). It is based on the 5 part Dark Horse comic series in which Frank Miller adapts the historical Battle of Thermopylae. To be quite fair even back in 1998, I felt the story was not the greatest. I wasn't knocked down by the story and its execution. The dialog and interactions are a bit peppered and melodramatic. Unlike most movies that work from a terrible source and then bury it (or the occasional great material being stifled), this movie was working with an average source and elevated it to the highest it can achieve. It is stunted by the source. What it does well is that it does the interpretation by the book, literally almost. The only exception would have to be the lapse of the failed suicide attempt of Ephialtes. Also the director takes some artistic licensing with the "exoticism" of the Persians. There are units and situations completely fabricated by the movie itself. Their inclusion is simply for the visceral effect. It increases the campiness, while decreasing the realism. Maybe that will change on the DVD. It will probably include the all nude, unedited and extended version of the movie - a.k.a the "Spartan Version".

Director, Zack Snyder (who did a great job of re-imagining Romero's Dawn of the Dead), should get kudos for creating a visually stunning and faithful to the source movie. The problem lies with Frank Miller. I believe he might be better at writing noir and noir-like material then sword and sandal epics. I mean lets not forget what Miller did to his futuristic, female protagonist , Martha Washington. He stranded her in space. The movie overdid the use of the action speed "effects". They were quite good, just overused. The other major problem was with the dialog. Though accurate to the comic, when done by actors it seemed quite melodramatic. The sheer number of speeches and over narration, gave the movie a comical aspect at times. We've all heard the "freedom"/"revenge" speech right before a do-or-die battle. Here it didn't do much but give me the chuckles. Even though there is action in the movie, it is not a typical action movie. It does have a political agenda, but it is hard to discern exactly what that is at times. All I know is that after watching V for Vendetta, I felt like blowing stuff up (at least in a game environment). This movie makes we want to do the same with a sword or maybe a spear.

I recommend watching this movie without the dialog. Just watch it with the soundtrack or maybe even substitute your own music tracks. Watch it in silence. It seems quite spartan that way. The advantage of the book is that the dialog can be skipped. The comic retains the "cave man painting on the wall" type communication. You don't need the dialog. It is art. It has a message. By proxy, if the movie is a faithful adaptation, then it also retains that same message.

The trailers are starting to hurt the movies. At this point it seems like trailers have become bullet points for the content. This is far from the 21st Soul Music Awards. It is good. It has value and it should be repeatedly watched. I wish that I hadn't seen the trailer. Anyone know a bald Hatian mutant I can consult with ?

Review of "Renaissance" (2006)

Renaissance (2006)


A Stunning Visual Realization

Much in the same way Frank Miller and his Sin City comics used black and white to express itself (and its film noir influences), so does Christian Volckman with Renaissance.

It is the year 2054, in Paris. In the tradition of science fiction, the future is a bright, sparkling multi-teared jewel. This is a jewel in a setting of misery, inequity and darkness; bright and beautiful on top with a dark underbelly beneath. One of these "bright" people at the top, a research scientist from a very large and influential global company (Avalon), is kidnapped. The well known and efficient, Captain Karas (voiced by the new James Bond himself - Daniel Craig), is assigned the task to find her.

The plot and layout is not overly original. It is heavily influenced by film noir, Gibson's Neuromancer and other detective stories, along with movies like Blade Runner, Sin City, Fritz Lang's Metropolis and Minority Report. There is the main plot, surrounded by other possible sub-plots that all connect at the end. It is not hard to figure it all out.

The movie's strength and originality is in its intense visual presentation. Paris is an intricate array of levels and sub-levels. At its base is the more primitive industrial infrastructure. As the city rises, so does its architectural complexity and luminescence. Yet in this structure, the top does not equate with elevation of human ideals and behavior. Paris has been intricately animated and laid out in brilliant black and white. The movie is closer in spirit with Sin City (the comics) then Sin City the movie was with its source material. This is done all the more easy, because it is still remaining in relatively the same medium; animation. Much in the same way as a Scanner Darkly pushed the visual aspects of story telling, so does this. The light and dark, black and white creates an atmosphere of contrasts, as well as visual ambiguity. Right and wrong, black and white can lose all meaning at the same time it is right in front of us. The movie proves how black and white can be both ambiguous and obvious at the same time.

In keeping with the spirit of the movie, I can be both critic and fan. I can love and loath in the same light. It is definitely an experience I recommend for lovers of the visual arts. So pour another Black and Tan, enter the void and enjoy the ride.

Review of "Blood Feast" (1963)

Blood Feast (1963)


Give yourself UP to the GODDESS !!!

In the context of film school, film theory, film conventions and anything about film-making that makes it a poignant and artful form of expression, this is a big "DON'T". Anything that can be done poorly, has already been done. Yet what we are left with is a prototypical piece of celluloid. The director, Herschell Gordon Lewis, can easily be seen as love child of Russ Meyer and Ed Wood. Those two names both evoke dread and hilarity. One can only imagine what a movie that has both would be like. Well thankfully for Herschell Gordon Lewis, the world soon found out.

As with most of his movies, forget the story. It is usually a patchwork of closeups, zoom outs, shaky cam, fake gore, nonsensical dialog driven vignettes (with sadomasochistic and other sexual undertones), coming together in the framework of 60 minutes.

There's a serial killer around killing young women and removing certain organs or appendages. At the same time there is a deli owner who caters a special ancient Egyptian feast. The rest is just nonsensical, droll dialog delivered with monotony and the ending. The ending is just painful. I recommend running around blindfolded at full speed in a city, as a way to simulate the end of the movie. If I am making this seem bad, I can digress by listing more evidence of this :

Exhibit 1 : Multiple minute scene of a character making a phone call and then conversing with that person. We never hear or see the person on the other end.

Exhibit 2 : Profile close ups of two people talking. Multiple instances too numerous to count.

Exhibit 3 : Echo, echo, echo .....

Exhibit 4 : Try to hire someone who's last job wasn't as a silent movie pianist, in 1919. It sounded like old heroin-hooked Bela Lugosi having fun with a church organ.

Exhibit 5 : Police that store their firearms in their back pockets (along with their wallets, most likely) and continue to mispronounce homicide (pronounced home_e-side).

Exhibit 6 : Horrible acting in vivid, bright Cinemascope.

Exhibit 7 : An intermission half way through the movie, where a Richard Nixon look alike is giving a lecture on ancient Egypt.

Exhibit 8 : The longest and slowest getaway and chase scene by a man from the Ministry of Funny Walks.

Exhibit 9 : Dialog such as :

"Well the killer must have thought she was dead. It was a miracle she wasn't."

"Well she is now."

".... yeah."

Based on all my evidence so far, you either :

a) think I hate this movie. b) know I hate this movie. c) stopped reading 15 minutes ago. d) are confused. e) none of the above.

To answer all but e, I do like this movie. This movie is closer to Russ Meyer's than Ed Wood. Ed lounged in his mediocre low-budget fetish. Russ mostly portrayed sex as a good, fun thing (his movies do have an unusual depth to them). Herschell took Ed's knack for making SOMETHING with limited funds and added the sexually explicit and completely gratuitous scenes. Just in case we weren't gorged enough on our own endorphins, he adds the gore/horror element. The funny thing is that none of it works. The ridiculousness of the movie is in itself. An advantage is the short running time. By the time you realize you are still watching, is the same point you realize it will just end.

I can easily see a starving early 30 year old William Shatner finding an artistic mentor after watching this on a lazy Saturday afternoon double feature. So join in. Drop into the couch and pour yourself a fresh one. We're gonna be here for a little while. Kanpai !!

Review of "Wu Seng" (1984)

Wu Seng" (1984)
(a.k.a. Guards of Shaolin)


A Shaolin's life for me.....

This was a film recommended by a friend of mine, who happens to be a practicing black belt. He loves the technique in this movie. This movie is a treat for fans of the genre.

Okay, so there are these four brothers. I don't believe they are related by blood but more by a communal brothership. The best part of a movie like this is, is that everything is revealed in due time (for example, character names, relationships, motivation, plot, etc). It makes you feel like you could have written this. Its very inspirational.

"Big Brother" , as he is referred to, seems often times constipated and uptight. He wants to become a monk, or something, and his "Father" won't make him into one. He has a wonderful relationship with nature (punches trees and the dirt). "Second Brother" apparently is subjugate to Big Brother and mostly just spies on Brother Three and Four. "Third Brother" apparently really likes to practice his Gongfu. "Fourth Brother" is the mischievous of the bunch. He also seems to be the brother wearing the most eye shadow and blush. Apparently the amount of makeup a man wears is directly proportional to his "evilness". Their "Uncle" by contrast, has a red dot in his forehead and the most makeup of any main character (except for the government official, the female ninja, various in-drag henchmen and Chinese-Robin Hood).

It is a somewhat predictable plot, but there is a plot nonetheless. The brothers are framed for the Shaolin abbot's "sudden illness". It drags a bit after the coup, but is still worthwhile. The action is fast. It is not spectacular or over the top. It's not stylized, but is infused with limited realistic wire work. The fighting styles are classic blue-collar Gongfu. Think Boston Celtics and not the Lakers. They have also managed to add some simple humor, mostly visual gags or facial expressions. It also looked like the actors may have performed their own stunts.

I did learn much I did not know about the Shaolin monks. Shaolin monks are capable of dodging some arrows. Shaolin kicks ass, but only when seriously provoked. And by serious, I mean fist to the face. The Shaolin monks seem to employ the Wedding Crasher's Will Farrel approach to seducing women. Get them at the funerals, preferably immediate family deaths. It's good to be a monk !!! Unfortunately, they have only one weakness. The Naked Tattooed Breast style !!! This is done most effectively when performed by a woman.

"Golden Sutra ? Golden Sutra ??"

Chinese Robin Hood tobogganing down the slopes ??

After watching this movie, I am the empty vessel with just one question to fill me up. How many times do you have to stab a dead guy in the crotch, before he's had enough ?? Take your answer, times it by 10 and then add 42. Then double that number and thats as close are your going to get to the real number. I loved the finale. It was "twisted", short and sweet. A must see for fans of classic martial arts.

Review of "Fah Talai Jone" (2000)

Fah Talai Jone (2000)
(a.k.a. Tears of the Black Tiger)


What spaghetti did for the western, tom yum goong tries to do the same.

My experience with movies from Thailand have mostly been in the form of Tony Jaa and several movies by Pen-Ek Ratanaruang (Last Life in the Universe, 6ixtynin9, and Transistor Love Story). Most people would probably just recognize the former and thus miss out on some unique creations. One such creation is Tears of the Black Tiger. To sum this movie up in one sentence : A Love Triangle, with the protagonist being a good guy by nature, but becoming bad by circumstance.

It is hard to describe or categorize this movie, because it crosses over so many categories. At its core it is mainly a western, but not a "realistic" western (for example, Open Range or Unforgiven). Think more of an early John Wayne kind of western, but stylized to the nth degree (like in a spaghetti western) and taking place in Thailand. It is part homage and seemingly part parody of the stereotypical behavior in a western. I am not sure if the satire is intentional but it is definitely in the style of the classic western, albeit on 10 cups coffee. It is also anachronistic, as there are cars available yet most use horses. There is gun play, like in a western, but the addition of sub-machine guns and rocket launchers to the mix is what makes it parodic (along with the over-the-top acting and romantic melodrama).

The movie uses stunning natural vistas along with theatrical-like set pieces, full screen closeups, contrasting vivid color, exaggerated facial expressions, unique camera angles, unexpected non-period weaponry and over-the-top acting. There is also a musical element to the movie. The soundtrack is mostly sung, but is quite catchy. You may find yourself humming or tapping your feet/finger. The above fore-mentioned elements is where this movie excels. The action sequences are violent and stylized (a nice touch with the gravity-defying blood). It is the what makes this movie unique and was gives it life.

The romantic melodrama is the part that drags this movie down. At 110 minutes running time, it is at least 20 minutes too long. Most of that is monotonous, sappy, melodramatic and out-dated material related to the unrequited love story. For similarities, think of the "melodrama" of lets say, Gone with the Wind. Sex is implied after a sunset hug. For me, two people deeply in love with each other that never kiss, does not make any sense nor seem like normal behavior. This might be normal for a movie made in 1930, but it is very, very dated in the 21st century. I do realize that the director was going for the homage to a period movie, however, he focuses too much on it. A little less focus on the "love story" would have made this movie a bit more enjoyable. After watching 1/2 a dozen or so Thai movies, I have realized one thing. Thai is not a very romantic sounding language. It particularly sounds worse when whining or screaming. It sounds more like Klingon than anything else. So if you can imaging Klingons doing a Romeo and Juliet parody, then you can pretty much imaging what the love story will sound like here.

Tony Jaa has taught me that a movie can be meaningless, convoluted to the point of incomprehensible, full of terrible acting and still be incredible enjoyable. If I am in a movie and I notice that my ass hurts or is numb, it means I am not engrossed into what is happening on the screen. That is unfortunately what happens during the non-action sequences of this movie. The love story drags you kicking and screaming from the nirvana of the action. I still recommend at least one viewing of this movie (I have seen it twice), although you may want to have some sort of medicine on hand. Also feel free to add your own dialog during the long, long, long dialog sequences, as the original may induce some sort of violent seizures.

Review of "Invincible" (2006)

Invincible (2006)


Rocky VII - A Football Story.

The real life events of Philadelphia native Vince Papale (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch's Mark Wahlberg) incredible ride into the NFL as a member of the Eagles. Vince was an out of work teacher and bartender who happened to make it to the NFL via Dick Vermeil's open tryouts, with no prior college or professional experience.

If you have seen Rocky, you kind of get the idea. It's Philly, its a blue collar town and during the 70's was in the grips of a severe recession. The director, Ericson Core (who's major contribution to this point was as cinematographer on the horrible Daredevil), does an adequate job of portraying this. Basically this is not really a football movie. I was having major flashbacks of Rudy. The whole point of the movie isn't football, but rather the underdog, the "American dream" accomplished. This isn't to say there isn't football in the movie. Most of it involves training camp and a few plays from the first few games. It is used to show that his accomplishment did not occur overnight, nor that it was easy.

Overall this isn't a great movie, but its hard not to care about Vince. These movies make us care about these people, by making the point that if they could do it, why can't we. They could be us, so it is easy to relate. The standout moment of the movie is at the end, where we are given archived footage of the actual Vince and some of the plays he made. It single-handed validated the movie for me, to see the energy, pride and character of Vince Papale. This movie would be a welcome DVD to my collection, right next to Rudy, the Replacements and the Longest Yard (the original 70's version... please don't soil that movie with thoughts of Adam Sandler).

Review of "Abominable" (2006)

Abominable (2006)


As good as its name …. if only slightly cheesier.

I had heard much and see some of it (thank you Joel from the Soup, for opening my eyes to the sheer horrific humor that is this movie), this SciFi cable original movie.

So the guy who was pegged as Steve Guttenberg's replacement in Police Academy 5 and 6 (Matt McCoy), is a wheelchair-bound former mountain climber. The cause of this injury is explained in a pseudo-flashback accident (and third person accounts) where he and his wife fall from Suicide Rock, because their climbing rope snapped. He has been taken to his cabin, near the scene of the tragedy, in the hopes that it will be beneficial and therapeutic. Upon arrival, Matt McCoy does his best Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window impersonation complete (and convenient) with 5 young, fresh girls next door. For some reason, we get the full view of the entire house complete with full audio capabilities, all from the binoculars Matt uses. I think Uwe Boll might have been a consultant-in-spirit on this movie.

Not much happens until about the hour mark. This is the part of the movie that makes this whole thing "worthwhile". The first hour just makes karma look like chamomile tea. Cheesy dialog and cheesy background music permeates the entire movie. It is the seasoning. The movie is quite sasquatch-centric. All revolves around it. "It" looks much like a mash-up of Harry, from Harry and the Hendersons, Critters, and an angry, drunken, 80 year old Scotsman. All that with a crazy lust for meat (dog, horse and people).

The plot isn't too complicated nor too in-depth. What you see or don't see, is exactly what you get. The rest involves lots of dragging, talking to oneself, pointless dialog, ripping flesh, tearing flesh and the "squeezing" of full size people through bathroom windows (a classic). There's some nice cameos by the late Paul Gleason, Lance Henriksen and the Re-Animator himself Jeffrey Combs. They don't contribute much too anything, albeit the scenes between the Re-Animator and Bishop are quite funny.

In the end all I wanted to know is: Where do I get some of the lip gloss/lip balm that Haley Joel was wearing? It doesn't fail, even when confronted with snow, dirt, mud, water, blood or killer Sasquatch. Operators are standing by, supplies are limited. Please order now. Bring the crackers and wine because you'll be getting a lot of cheese. And nothing goes better with cheese than crackers and wine. Don't delay, watch it today.

Review of "Huo Yuan Jia" (2006)

Huo Yuan Jia (2006)
a.k.a. Fearless; Jet Li's Fearless
Semi-Fictional, Demi-Political, Demi-Philosophical tale of Chinese martial arts legend, Huo Yuanjia.

That whole first line is a mouthful, but describes the movie in a most precise way. First of all my gripes. After watching Tony Jaa, anything that doesn't involve contact is not quite there. It's like playing the original Half-Life after you've tried Soldier of Fortune. It is so close, yet something is lacking. Tony Jaa's influence is in everything these days from Banlieue 13 to Casino Royale and is certainly not missing from this one either. The wire work and the Jet Li's fill-ins are the blemishes on some really great fight scenes. This isn't to say that the wire work is bad, because it is not. It is done in a realistic manner. I guess Tony Jaa has just spoiled us all. My second gripe is the demi-political message mixed in. Although there is no direct country mentioned, there is a subdued sense of communal nationalism. Maybe I am just reading into it, or if I am basing it on other movies (ie, The Bodyguard from Beijing, another Jet movie in which it ends with a full screen Chinese Communist flag fluttering) ?

Now to the good parts. This is a glorified tribute to the famous Shanghai martial arts master, Huo Yuanjia. You will remember Hou Yuanjia is the master of Bruce Lee's character in Fists of Fury (aka, The Chinese Connection). The above subject has also been visited by Jet himself in Fist of the Legend. The movie starts with Huo Yuanjia's famous tournament against the champions of the Sphere of Influence nations. We get to the Japanese challenger and then are sent into a flashback to Huo's youth. We are given the details of Huo's early life, his trials and tribulations. How he was, what he became and how he got there. This section is full of all the other parts of martial arts that have nothing to do with fighting (at this point I'm think fondly of Bruce's Circle of Iron). This all leads up to the point past the end of the opening scene and involves the battle between the Japanese master and Huo. All the fight scenes are choreographed well and are quite exciting. I'm thinking especially of Hua vs O'Brien (Nathan Jones - who recently got his ass kicked by Tony Jaa in Tom Yun Goong) and the scene where Hua has all the challengers come up at once. This is obviously a tribute to Bruce's dojo scene from Fists of Fury.

As this is a semi-bio-pic, it runs into the same inherent problems in the genre; namely that you must have something invested in the person already. The person must be someone you know something or care something about. Rarely does a movie in this genre make you care about the character if you are not interested. It is much like hypnosis, if you do not believe you will not be put under. I did not know much about Hua before this, but I was curious enough to get some background afterwards. Also, I have seen enough martial arts movies such that this was background enough to connect me to Huo. All in all, I highly recommend this movie and don't tell anyone, but................... I'm a real life giant chicken.