Review of "Pineapple Express" (2008)

Pineapple Express (2008)

Disappointed. Tropic Thunder is the real deal.

I have to come out and set the record straight: I am not a fan of Judd Apatow or his minions (especially Seth Rogen & Danny McBride). I never saw more than one episode of Freaks & Geeks and didn't break a smile when I saw the 40 Year Old Virgin. I thought Knocked Up was an evolutionary step for the geek character (maturation), but at the end, instead it falls into a mixed-up, end-justifies-the-means philosophy that contradicts the true nature of the geek. Looking at a list of Apatow's writing/directing/producing credits, only the Cable Guy & Walk Hard, would I consider funny or better than average. He has created this chic-geek template which he just transplants to a new scenario. This wouldn't be so bad if he didn't use a group of similar guys in very similar roles, playing themselves in each one of those. PE is not directed by Judd, but he does have writing and producing credits. As Tim Burton keeps acting out father issues and Woody Allen struggles with his sexual inadequacies on screen; Judd Apatow has geek issues/trauma.

Bringing a boat to the gun show.

This is the geek-chic scenario in a stoner movie with action scenes. Rogen is a late 20/early 30-something, subpoena delivery, court-clerk stoner, who's dating a high school senior. James Franco is his dealer (a good hearted stoner as well), who has a strain of "pineapple express" cannabis. Rogen witnesses a murder, but leaves behind the roach. That roach connects Rogen to the pineapple express which connects him to Franco. The result is a stoner, buddy movie (typical of the genre Cheech & Chong created) with over-the-top, bloodless action.

I have seen a variety of stoner movies, either made with or for stoners. The stoner part is almost identical throughout the movies: hallucinations, uncontrolled laughing, red eyes, cotton mouth, random ramblings, poor logic process & decision-making ability, crazy/random/awkward situations, etc. That part requires an uncanny chemistry between the "stoners" to be memorable. Though this movie tries to create an emotional connection between the two main protagonist stoners, it ultimately fails because the goal of the movie is the action. The humor is simple (as in you don't have to think about it and is more similar to a pie to the face or a fart joke, than the life of Oliver Cromwell in song) and implies a certain state-of-mind to appreciate it. A good comedy is funny in a variety of states and I am starting to find that implied required state to be insulting to the target demographic. It is stereotypical and unrealistic of most.

Ah. Purging fire. If only it were real.

While this movie tries to stand out by adding an extra layer of violence, the problem with the violence is that it seems hyper-realistic & graphic at first, but turns out to be cartoony and unrealistic. I praise the movie for trying something different with this genre, but in the end it fails because it does not go far enough with the one element that is original. The violence angle negates itself by it's own ridiculousness. CG blood still doesn't look real (see 300, Mongol or Rambo for reference). Think of the violence in a Warner Bros cartoon. Recall Elmer Fudd blowing the face off Daffy Duck. Did you feel like anyone was hurt? Are you outraged by the shooting? Does it make you feel anything other than hysterical laughter? Were there any repercussions? For most people all those are going to be answered by an emphatic 'no'. An example of this black, action comedy genre (that succeeds where this fails) is Tropic Thunder (review coming soon). And yes I know Danny McBride is in it, but his comedic influence is mitigated in TT in contrast to his PE role.

Graphical representation of the effects of this movie.

The movie teeters dangerously down the divide that separates the two main themes & choosing not to go in either direction. As Mr. Miyagi once said this inevitably leads to being smashed like a grape in the middle. If the movie either stayed on the ridiculous, stoner angle or chose instead to make the violence real (think of the difference between most of Boogie Nights & Wonderland), it would have been more of a success. As I mentioned earlier, I am biased when it comes to this. If you are a fan of Apatow or his brood or are new to the stoner genre, then you might get more enjoyment from this than I did. To me this is just a disposable (cliched and unremarkable) stoner-genre buddy movie that is as disposable as the contents of a Japanese vending machine. BTW, I was thinking of used underwear.

The rest of the screen shots are here.

Review of "Southland Tales (2006)"

Southland Tales (2006)

Movies like this don't kill themselves, unfortunately they end with a whimper.

Richard Kelly's second directorial feature film is schizophrenic mess. There have been rumors of several versions of this movie, but I have only seen the 144 minute version.

In an alternate version of America, after a nuclear attack on American soil, the country turns into a militarily fascist state. In present day (2008 coincidentally), a well known actor (the Rock himself, Dwayne Johnson) disappears and then re-appears somewhere else, but with amnesia. What happened? What happened is perhaps Richard Kelly has been over-interacting with giant inter-dimensional talking rabbits. The plot is a convoluted mess of previously done material. It felt like I was watching a mash-up of Escape from New York, Total Recall, Running Man, Death Race 2000, Robocop, Minority Report, TimeCop, Enemy of the State, 6th Day, Gattaca, Dark City, and probably a mess of other movies.

There is nothing inherently wrong with creating your own dystopic universe as long as you have a story to back up your universe. In most of these movies the plot is usually overly (and sometimes unnecessarily) complicated and convoluted. I can live with that so long as I come away with something. First and foremost about Southland Tales is that the introduction is storyboarded, accompanied by faux "internet" and regular news, and a narrative by Justin Timberlake. Not that this isn't informative, but it goes on a little long and Kelly reuses this method a few too many times to move the story forward.

In this new and complicated world, there are many factions at work and everything seems to revolve around Boxer Santeros (The missing Rock) and a police office, Roland Taverner. I won't try to unravel the mystery, as it seems to be more of a Russian doll set with the final doll containing nothing but air inside.

The biggest problem is that the movie spends an enormous amount of time building the story, only to leave you hanging out to dry at the end. The world ends? Really?? Really? It ends dramatically instead of a whimper? Really?? Is it implied? Does it happen after the fade to black? I appreciate the director's attempt at a possible and alternate world, his use of Biblical reference and cross-reference to events in the movie and the Total Recall story line (is it all a dream or is this real), but in the end it is all for not.

The amazing cast is also wasted as is the opportunity to make a timely and relevant message. I guess thats Hollyw0od for you. There is a message but it never delves past the superficial. In my opinion the message is a bit "DUH" (the response to someone telling you something obvious like water's wet, the sky is blue and the world is spherical), especially in light of all the previously mentioned futuristic predecessors.

Just because Richard Kelly discovered what most should already know, does not make it a good film. Instead, Richard would have to offer a different perspective to make it relevant, but instead he decides to hide his lack of originality in subterfuge. Richard also does not do action well, further handicapping what could have been an enjoyably, exaggerated action movie world. This isn't a bad movie, but because the director feels the need to disguise it in non-existent layers just hurts everything.

Normally I would offer an alcoholic recommendation for movies like this, mostly for the pain, but in this case I don't think it will help. I recommend you try any one of the movies I referred to earlier and hope that Richard Kelly isn't a one trick pony.

Review of "Deja Vu (2006)"

Deja Vu (2006)

This all seems so familiar.....

TimeCop. This is TimeCop without the "Muscles from Brussels". The plot is not the same yet the vehicle is. Also, do not forget the 2 drink minimum with Denzel Washington.

A ferry blows up in New Orleans carrying mostly servicemen and civilians. Denzel Washington is an ATF agent sent to investigate. The first half of the movie is your typical police drama/investigation. It is the second half of the movie that feels like someone sucker punched you in the gonads. Let me rephrase that. It is so completely over the top and full of paradoxes that it makes Millennium seem like a Broadway musical.

It isn't that this is a bad movie. The problem is that it isn't consistent and that hurts it dramatically. If it went full on science fiction or basic detective story, it would have worked. The problems is the sudden flip. I thought there was something wrong with the DVD or maybe the director had seen too much of Memento recently. And yes, Paula Patton is easy on the eyes, but she spends half the movie being dead. I don't swing that way, sorry.

TimeCop worked on a purely science fiction and campy level. It is like that from beginning to end. Deja Vu tries first to be realistic and then sneaks in the incredible midway plot twist (like we were sufficiently drunk enough to try a rear entry through the back door without anyone noticing). It just becomes ridiculous. This is further complicated by the happy, yet somehow implausible and strangely creepy, ending.

This is a pure rental. Unless you enjoy happy, yet implausible endings, love stories involving dead people and/or science fiction so watered down you can't taste it , I suggest you try something else.

Review of "The Sentinel (2006)"

The Sentinel (2006)

Clint Eastwood was better.

Michael Douglas is a Secret Service agent, who took a bullet for Bonzo, uh, I mean Reagan. That was then, this is now. Think Clint Eastwood in the Line of Fire, except instead of John Malkovich as the antagonist, we have a Secret Service mole and instead of Renee Russo as the love interest, Michael Douglas is having an affair with a former first lady (a.k.a. whatever happened to Kim Basinger).

The director, Clark Johnson, derives most of his experience from the television series Homicide : Life on the Street (in which he starred and even directed a few episodes) and S.W.A.T. If I wanted a realistic portrayal of tactical situations and procedures, Clark Johnson would be my choice. So if I wanted to make the movie version of Rogue Spear, Splinter Cell, Full Spectrum Warrior or a remake of Navy Seals, I would call him, knowing full well the story/plot would take the last seat at the back of the bus.

The movie has a very interesting initial premise that is then beaten, rapped, spat on, urinated on and set on fire. Michael Douglas is a decorated and respected agent who suspects a mole and then becomes the suspect. This was the part that hooked me and got me to keep watching. Unfortunately, this suspense lasts approximately 10 minutes and then dives head first into the deep, shallow end of clichéd predictability. What we are left with resembles direct to video or made for TV (a.k.a. Sci-Fi Channel original minus the laughter).

Kiefer Sutherland seems to be reprising his Jack Bauer role from 24 and Eva Longoria continues her meteoric rise to mediocrity, with her non-existent (or if it exists, untapped) talent (and by talent I mean actual acting ability and not just how she looks). Martin Donovan is also in the movie, but seems to have been typecast as either a doctor or some sort of law enforcement. I loved him in Weeds, but here he (and the rest of the cast as well) is as flat as 2 day old opened soda. It is nice to see Kim Basinger in a movie, but it seemed like they got her Bowfinger style. Maybe they told her they were filming a training video??

Unless you are an insomniac, have a strange attraction to whips, chains and beatings, are wasted to the point that you can't stand or walk or are a die-hard, lifetime member of the Michael Douglas fan club, I recommend you skip this one. According to my "shot scale" this is definitely a 5 drink minimum.

Review of "Ultraviolet (2006)"

Ultraviolet (2006)

Bloodrayne Aeon Flux '84

The above summary actually sounds better, as an idea in and of itself, than the resulting movie. After Kurt Wimmer's surprisingly entertaining and under looked Equilibrium (starring pre-Batman Christan Bale), I had high expectations for his third movie. I had seen this movie in it's theatrical debut. I remember leaving the theater, however, confused and bewildered. I figured the second time around would yield a better indicator of the actual worth of the movie.

Kurt Wimmer made a movie based on a non-existing comic book. The convoluted story is about a pathophobic authoritarian dystopia, where a super soldier virus evolves into a plague and leads to forced relocations and ultimately genocide. Two factions are born; the healthy (medial totalitarian state) and the infected (terrorist rebel underground - a.k.a. hemophages, a.k.a. "blood-eaters", a.k.a. vampires). Symptoms of the infection include stronger bones, better hearing and eyesight, faster healing and hyper-fast reflexes. The only drawback is the dozen year life span.

In all honesty, I like the first half of this movie. The first 5 minutes is an action movie delight, complete with an air bomb/bowling ball ninja death squad. The narrative voice-over, that follows, is when the dread begins. This is mostly due to the realization that this is a puree of preexisting ideas. Equilibrium (also a puree) worked because it didn't try too hard. It didn't fall into the computer graphics trap. It presented a world that was slightly askew, yet eerily possible. All those things that worked in Equilibrium have been tweaked here to the nth degree and subsequently combines into a Frankenstein movie. Unfortunately, it just looks, feels and acts too much like an Aeon Flux clone. Do we really need two?

The movie is a hell of a nonsensical but visually stimulating ride, until about 1/2 way through. This is about the time when our infected and meta-skilled heroine, Violet (Milla Jovovich), ends up on the fence between her people and the organization she is sworn to defend because her maternal instincts kick in. A highly skilled assassin turns into a highly skilled assassin-soccer mom. Milla Jovovich has a certain knack for picking outrages roles and generally excels in things requiring little acting ability. She does look exceptional in a tight body suit. Some of the technology has a nice wow-factor (gravity leveler and transportable space, to name a couple), but is simply there for show.

The second half of the movie is her trying to act in the middle of a nonsensical, non-stop action scenario. It becomes a case of "are we done yet?". It is just too much and too repetitious to deal with. Nothing new is added to the mix after this point, so it becomes a case of rinse & repeat. As in his previous movie, colors are primary and important. I guess Wimmer forgot to add the visual context, because all the color changes just seem to be part of the cool factor and have little to do with the plot. There is a lot of wire work and continuation of gun-kata (from Equilibrium). The problem is we are made to believe that a nurse and wife became an uber, meta-human assassin through a metabolic change and not training. Is Wimmer choosing nature over nurture or is he just so intoxicated off the smell of his own genius that he didn't even consider what he was creating?

For Wimmer this is his Modern Prometheus. It is the monster he created with his own hands, that is currently proving to be his outdoing. On my "shot scale" this is a 5 drink minimum. The top half is good, with the bottom half being synonymous to diving head-first into an empty swimming pool. Save the last 3 shots for the second half of the movie, as you will be bored to tears otherwise. Here's a toast to Wimmer. May his next movie not suck! Zum Wohl!

Review of "Spider-Man 3 (2007)"

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

The Public Castration and Impotence of Spider-Man (a.k.a. the former secret of Peter Parker) by Dr. Phil

The potential for subject lines here are as infinite as where I could start with just how bad this movie is. Bad maybe an exaggeration. Knowing what I know about Spider-Man and of Raimi's work, it is bad. The movie by itself is barely average. In the echelon of the trilogy, this movie would be dead last. I haven't been this disappointed by a finale of a trilogy since Matrix Revolutions. I'm not counting Revenge of the Sith because in all honesty we knew it was going to be bad from the beginning (it is somewhere in the void of "it's so bad its decent"). The second movie is the best in the trilogy and one of the best "comic book movies" made. This one meanders from the start with the opening credits involving a montage of scenes from the first two movies (minus Alex Ross). Did I just have my memory wiped? No, that would be one of the main characters (more on this later).

Where as the first movie was relatively slow, I can understand that the character and story development was needed. The follow up had all the elements in all the right proportions. Part three simply tries to be better by sheer force. If 1 villain was good, then 3 must be 3 times better, right? WRONG. If the trial, tribulations and personal problems of Peter Parker was meaningful to the character's development, then dropping a truck load of melodrama will make it that much better, right? WRONG. There is just too much of everything, except action. For those that thought Death Proof was boring, the first half of this movie will have you sucking down a Extra-Super-Large Coke just to maintain a semblance of consciousness. I felt like maybe Barbara Walters and her View cronies had written aspects of the script. I know Peter Parker is not your typical superhero, who often delves into his personal life and emotion, but did we have to give him estrogen therapy? Others have called this movie "dark" and full of revenge. By dark they must have meant the costume and/or lighting and by revenge they must not have seen OldBoy (or any of Chan-wook Park's revenge trilogy). There are too many nemeses, too much meaning-less dialog and situations we have already dealt with in some form and not enough new things. All the growth and development is at the end and done in such a lackadaisically talk show-like moment. I'm not even going to comment on the crappy and sudden "sunset" ending or the "apology". Ugh. Now I have to gargle some Stolichnaya to keep the vomit down.

There are few things that are good. The thing that foremost stood out in my mind is Sandman. I'm not talking about the character, but the CG creation. It is simply amazing and left me in awe. The Venom character is also impressive, but it did not resonate with me as much as Sandman. Maybe that was because Eric Forman kept talking out of the creature, with unscripted comic high jinks. I was half expecting a Chevy Chase-like pratfall somewhere (I think this is more of a problem with the actor than the character). The only other standout for me is the incomparable Bruce Campbell. He single-handedly outshines any of the marquee names in this movie (and he does this with a very limited screen time) and is one of the most vastly underrated actors out there. The black-suited Spider-Man is also interesting and has a couple of nice moments, but overall felt underwhelming (more is better equation again). The few good moments (Peter's dark side dancing included) are overwhelmed by repetition and muffled by long stretches of nothing.

The movie is a summer blockbuster gone bad. It was almost as if everyone involved was forced to work on this movie out of contractual obligations. It is completely soulless and the antithesis of the previous two movies. Even New York is missing, replaced by a generic looking metropolis. This would seem to be the case if you heard the way Tobe Maguire and Kirsten Dunst speaking on the "promotion tour" of the movie. I would be surprised if either of them (or the director) hook up for a fourth movie (this of course does not take in account the money and people's desire to sell as much of themselves as possible). It just seemed that everyone was tired of it all. Tobe plays Spider-Man in either a "robot-mimic" style or an over-the-top emotional fake. Does Spider-Man even need a costume anymore? Everyone seems to know who he is. Was Raimi looking towards the recent Marvel House of M and Civil War events for inspiration? Dunst is back to playing the flat Mary-Jane, who yet again is only good for kissing and requires constant rescuing. Topher Grace just doesn't fill up Venom's suit well and his acting acumen has not elevated him past Eric Forman(yet). Sandman as character made me yawn. About the only good characterization (apart from Bruce Campbell) would have to be James Franco (Harry Osbourne). He is the only one who actually looks like he cares; too bad he gets amnesia, his motivations change more times than a manual transmission and his butler has a sudden outbreak of Alzheimer's.

I didn't even mention the story, but that's mostly cause it just seems to be a collection of coincidences. One could say a Reader's Digest edited version of the best of Spider-Man. This movie reminds me much of the X-Men 3 movie except that movie made me laugh my ass off (unintentionally of course). I actually had high expectations for this movie, albeit I had a feeling it was going to try too much. I didn't expect too much to equal bad. Unless you are a teen, pre-teen or a drooling vegetable, you are probably not going to enjoy this movie much. Go back and see the previous two movies for your Spider-Man craving.

Review of "Bottom Feeder (2006)"

Bottom Feeder (2006)

Adventures in Maintenance

This movie's notoriety comes not from itself but rather as a rest stop in the Twilight Zone that is the life of Tom Sizemore. It was prominently showcased in the VH1 reality show about the events following rehab and the crystal meth induced flashbacks of Tom Sizemore's "Shooting Sizemore". It is clear from watching the show that this movie was not an option for Tom Sizemore. It is obvious that he had money problems at the time and would have done dog food commercials if anyone had offered. It is also the movie he quit two days into shooting. After a lot of soul searching, this movie was filmed and Tom was back on the road.

This is a low-budget straight to video type movie. If Tom wasn't in this movie, no one would have probably blinked. There is no originality in anything this movie tries. The elements are piecemeal Frankenstein with Machiavellian conspiracies from the vantage point of custodians. The release of this movie in any form is an accomplishment in itself. I keep thinking this would have been perfect on an adult version of the Sci-Fi Channel. Oh right, thats Cinemax.

A scientist develops a Wolverine-like serum with consequences (which are somewhat vague and leave the possibility for a sequel). An offspring of Pineapple Pokopo and Bruce VeSota attempts to get the serum for his own needs. The serum is not tested and the scientist is "volunteered" to test it. The rest is a Predator-like cat and mouse game, in some abandoned sewer-like corridors. First they try and capture it. When that doesn't work, elimination is the next option.

Tom does an adequate job with a half-ass story and horrible dialog. This is the kind of dialog that belongs in a Steven Seagal movie. You can tell Tom is just going through the motions and he still outshines everyone else. I am not even going to wonder where they got the fake Jamaican hobo, Sarge. I haven't seen a performance that bad since Jar Jar Binks tried it.

This is an appropriately titled movie, since Tom was rock-bottom at the time and everyone else has been scrapping the bottom of the acting barrel for years. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these "actors" had to act for food (a.k.a. porn). It isn't that this movie is enjoyable, it is more that it is not annoying (except for Sarge). Give it a chance as a rental, if you like low-budget modern schlock or Tom Sizemore.

Review of "Debbie Does Dallas (1978)"

Debbie Does Dallas (1978)

This looks so familiar ......

This movie is a snippet of cosmic synergy. At least it is for me. First of all I recognize the name Robin Byrd. That is the woman I see on Manhattan public access every night (channel 30-33) as I channel surf. Now it all makes sense. Then I recognize the setting of the movie. I believe it is the campus of SUNY Stony Brook out on Long Island. As I reminisce transversing the campus, it again makes cosmic relevance.

Debbie Does Dallas is the most commonly referenced Pr0N movie title. The problem is that fewer and fewer have actually seen it. I can now join the club of those that have seen it. Perhaps there is a reason why the title endures while the movie sinks deeper into the vault. It is not a good movie. There is a shortage of acting, scenery, props and plot. Even the naughty bits are a bit outdated. Everything is in gruesome butcher zoom complete with all natural 70's tertiary sexual characteristics. It's a bit Me-Tarzan-You-Jane. The most interesting aspect of the movie is newcomer Bambi Woods (a.k.a. Debbie). She has a certain youthful exuberance.

Debbie has been accepted as a Texas Cowgirl cheerleader (faux Dallas Cowboy cheerleader ??), but her family won't help her financially to get there. Cheerleaders to the Rescue !! They pool together and do "odd" jobs to get the money. Of course each of these "jobs" involves some "incidental" sex in the course of the interaction. It feels quite amateurish, like someone's first VHS camera documenting their summer at camp.

The main attraction of this movie is Bambi Woods, which is of course made more tragic/interesting because of her drug overdose death in '86 (joining a list that includes Playboy Playmate Galaxina herself, Dorothy Stratten, the Black Dahlia and recently Anna Nicole). I can't recommend this movie for more than a one-time thing. It's like that time you ate a worm, or when and how you lost your virginity or where did that tattoo come from? A lot of that you did just to say you did it. Some things you enjoy doing over and over, while others go to the gutter. This will be in the Smithsonian some day (maybe when the garbage starts to avalanche), but for now this is simply a rental. For a true cross-section of good movies in this genre, check out 42nd Street Forever - XXXtreme Edition instead. Yule-love IT!!

(Disclaimer : Do not mix with Motown as the side effects include : Drowsiness, nausea and hostility towards people and language)

Review of "Gymkata (1985)"

Gymkata (1985)

The Most Dangerous Game and the Strategic Defense Initiative in Parmistan

This movie beckons the question : What does men's gymnastic and cloaked, ninja henchmen on horses have in common ? Both are an intricate part of director, Robert Clouse's, vision. After his collaboration with Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon and Game of Death, Jim Kelly in Black Belt Jones and Jackie Chen in the Big Brawl, Robert Clouse cleverly blended campy masterpieces like the Ultimate Warrior (with Yul Brynner), Lee Van Cleef as the "stunt-ed" Master and this relatively unknown gem.

Gymkata's protagonist is "faster than fire" Johnny Cabot (adequately played by Kurt Thomas, a gold medalist at the 1978 World Championships in gymnastics). Cabot's father was on a secret mission for the US government to secure "favors" of a country call Parmistan (actually filmed in the former Yugoslavia). They have a certain custom there which involves "the Game" and the 1 wish imparted to its survivor (a.k.a. winner). Major countries across the world are competing to win. Apparently, Mr. Reagan's "Star Wars" project is on the line. Johnny is sent in as a backup to his father and to win the game. To do so he is given the help of the Princess of Parmistan (who doesn't utter one word until 16 minutes into the movie and seems to be the mentor and acting coach of Devon Aoki) and her "gymkata" grand masters. Their training turns him from an adequate fighting gymnast to a lean, and relatively polite hopping machine.

The most important and relevant question one needs to ask oneself is "what is gymkata"? Gymkata seems to be a fighting form that combines gymnastics with some generic un-named martial art. Its principles involve lots of running and jumping around. To be proficient in gymkata, one must also master the lost weapon skills of pommel horse, high bar and floor exercise. Martial arts veteran, Richard Norton (Zamir), bares his chest and hams it up as the villain. Norton's fighting skills are severely in check and underused, however, this movie's influence can still be seen in other movies (for example, the pommel horse scene seems to have been a huge influence on the Wachowskis and a certain scene involving Neo and many Smiths).

The "Game" of Parmistan is an "iron man"-like event. There is first a race that leads to cliff rope climb, followed by a rope bridge, more running, hill climbing, running through the forest and then surviving the Village of the Damned. Whomever survives gets just 1 request and is revered by the local population. Big Whoop !!

Unfortunately, the director's pedigree and the presence of Norton does not provide for anything more than laughable combat scenes. This movie is in no way to be taken seriously. From the 80's hair and 80's clothes, to the ridiculous plot and silly fighting is sure to put a smile on the face of the most disgruntled person. Johnny is whiny and annoying as the hero (think of Luke except much, much whinier). The plot, acting and action is laughable. It is enjoyable and easy to watch, but is geared towards showing off the talents of Kurt Thomas. I am sorry, Kurt, but you are no Bruce Lee. You aren't even good enough to lick the boots of Bruce's #1 fan and impersonator, Bruce Li. That's okay, though. You may not be the best of the best, but you sure look funny trying. Keep up the good work, Yorick.

Review of "Hauru no ugoku shiro" (2004)

Hauru no ugoku shiro (2004)
(a.k.a. Howl's Moving Castle)


Hayao Miyazaki's animated movie follow up to amazing and vivid Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (Spirited Away). The difference is disparagingly disappointing.

I am going to do something that I haven't to this point done, in my IMDb history. I am going to point out a trend I have noticed on this website and possibly ridicule some of the opinions of other IMDb contributors. I do realize this is not normal and believe it may be due to the 80 hours or so I am going to complete this week at work and my lack of cranberry juice or Nutella spread for this morning's bagel breakfast spread. That is like spitting on a man ablaze. First of all, you are spitting on someone. Secondly, the ludicrously small amount of water in the spit couldn't put out a match (of course unless you are a spit marksman, in which case I apologize). And finally, you ARE spitting on someone. That is how I felt about this movie. I was actually hoping Miyazaki could help me out in my temporal predicament, as he had done many times in the past. With hopeful enthusiasm, my confidence and trust of my fellow humans deteriorated to the point of despair and disdain. I realize I should probably sleep on this topic before writing a review, but here we are.

The trend in question involves the best of the user comments. I have noticed that many of the under performing movies' (in my opinion) top listings all praise these movies. That is not that strange. What is strange is that these top listings usually are contributed by "authors" with 20 or fewer contributions (a bunch of them are in the single digits). Is this some form of gorilla marketing ? A devoted single-serving, nom de plum for Shakespeare's modern living legacy or something completely different? It is not for me to decide, but merely to point out a perceived pattern.

This movie is a clear indicator of the above patterns. It took to #11th best comment to get the first "prolific author" (only in the teens), who saw it as a disappointing 7/10 film. I would love to be that disappointed. It would make this day for me seem like drinking warm soda on a hot day. It took to the #14 best comment to get the first true prolific author, who didn't actually see this movie with the original Japanese audio. This duality, this contradiction permeates the movie and it's fans as well. For me it is hard to reconcile. Outside of my current state of being (in which case it is the proverbial straw on the posterior of a dromedary), I would have found this movie comparable to a lukewarm bath. It's not annoying or cold enough to get out, yet not hot enough to want to stay in longer or build a summer home there. With Miyazaki mediocrity is not expected, but here we are.

The world is a Victorian-like Era complete with WWI/WWII like technology powered by steam and various non-nuclear fuels. Victorian covers everything from the structures, the clothes, the technology and even the behaviors. Its turn of the century European influence is quite pronounced. At the same time it is part European and it is also part Japanese, but in more subtle ways.

A young, insecure hat maker's apprentice (Sofî) stumbles upon a magician and his situation, quite by accident while walking on the streets at night. This leads to the Witch of the Waste cursing her with old age. She seems to get older and younger over the course of the movie. I am not sure if this is due to the nature of the curse or if she is affecting the spell itself, with her emotions and thoughts. Maybe it is just a colossal film continuation blunder. I don't know. I do know it was very distracting along with Sofî herself. She then finds the wizards again (Hauru, a.k.a. Howl) and decides to hire herself as the house-keeper of his multidimensional castle. She also makes a deal with the boiler (a.k.a, Karushifâ, Calcipher ; a fire spirit holding the castle together and source of Hauru's power) to help her dispel the curse.

I had a hard time connecting with most of the characters, their motivation and the story (especially the main characters). It was an amalgamate of contradiction. It is a movie that takes its time to build up the story and characters, yet ends in a quick breeze complete with a nicely tied red satin bow. It wants to be a love story, built upon loneliness, insecurity, chance and proximity, yet expressed in the juvenile form. I felt like an adult watching a kid's movie or better yet watching an alien trying to emulate human behavior or thought, but never personally experiencing it. It felt contrived. Logical steps seems to skip, as if human motivation is a mere trite and the result is all that is important.

The animation is the only saving grave of this movie. The style, color and attention to detail is amazing. This world is alive, even though our protagonists are cardboard cut outs of real people. This world is so character shallow that wars are started and ended as simply as one would bite into a cookie. I love the idea, layout and detail of Hauru's moving residence. It is in the title of movie and deservingly so. The most memorable character of the movie would have to be Karushifâ and unfortunately his story takes a side-quest to the main story : Sofî and Hauru. The rest is cute and simplistic. It strives to be deep, yet when we examine the evidence of the inner meaning it is bare or non-existing. These "people" don't live, they just follow a life trajectory. If you like floating around through life, not interested in what is going on around you, then this movie might resonate with you. I on the other hand, would like to believe there are things and people yet to see along my path to wherever.

Review of "H6" (2005)

H6: Diario de un asesino (2005)


A Modern Spanish Adaptation of the Trials and Tribulations of Henri Landru.

Sometimes we think, due to our limited circumstances, that as a species we have evolved to a level beyond the animal. That we are somehow more developed and more advanced. How much "evolutionary difference" is there between defecating in the fields and creating a special "place", with water, where one goes to defecate? Also think about how sometimes it is of a communal nature (sometimes even doing it side-by-side, separated just a couple of feet apart from each other by incomplete walls). The most prude of us, the English, even went as so far as to disguise it with language,as if perfuming the air. They called it a water closet. George Carlin would have something funny to say about that subject right about now. I'm definitely no George Carlin, but I can press play. If you are ready to deal with the baseness of the human species, then this movie might be right for you.

The movie starts brutally in a darkened stairwell, where we witness a most violent break up. Antonio Frau, in the most extreme act of machismo, strangles his girl friend/ wife. This movie tries very hard to make you feel extremely uncomfortable with what is happening on the the screen. It would easily qualify as grind house, except that it is way too dark, stylized and imposes too much seriousness to be campy. It resembles more of a "From Hell" in the type of a demi-hero, demi-villainous character it employs. Antonio Frau (Fernando Acaso), after being released from prison years later, inherits an abandoned ex-whore house from his aunt. This becomes the scene of the fun house experience at Freddy Kruger's house. Fernando Acaso does an amazing job of creating a Jeffery Dahmer like demeanor. It is cold on the outside, yet charming somehow. Throughout, however, is this creepy feeling like you are being surgically sliced into bits (in his mind).

The storyline follows a modern piece of historically inspired fiction. Historically speaking, Henri Landru was a French serial killer that preyed mostly on widows, during World War I in Paris (10/11 of his victims were women). Henri kept a detailed log of all the women and all of the aliases he used on each. At one point a relative of one of his victims shows up looking for them. This stirs up the police, which leads to Landru and his journal (which was used as evidence to convict him). Landru eventually is guillotined a few years later. Antonio Frau actual speaks about Landru in the movie. He is considered a flawed inspiration. Henri was in it for the money, however, Antonio has another agenda as well (a Saw-like agenda). There is such a duplicity to the character of Antonio Frau. Some of the really graphic scenes had very little actual gore, but actually maintained a somber and terrifying style which helped it from falling back into grind.

The style is eerily single X snuff-like. There is some guilt in watching, yet it feeds the voyeuristic and bass tendencies in humankind to continue to not look away. It is hard to recommend this movie to anyone, considering the nature of the violence. This is why I gave it a 5/10. Depending on the type of person watching this movie, I can easily see it going either way. Much like someone once said of Kronos; You either find it interesting or strongly, wrenchingly dislike it. There is no love.

Review of "Doom" (2005)

Doom (2005)


You know something's off balance when Karl Urban gets top billing over the Rock, in a B-movie based on a computer first-person shooter game.

Based on the latest iteration of the Doom series; This one seems to rely heavily on the Doom3 storyline, with the exception of the actual story. It definitely recreates the dark, cramped and "sweaty" atmosphere of the military/research complex from the game. The plot diverges a bit from the game. Apparently, force powers come from midi-chlorians and the devil-made-me-do-it (a.k.a. demonic possession) is based on an "Alien"-like tongue propagating with your neck.

The Rock leads a tactical rescue squad to Mars to investigate a disturbance and quarantine mission. Before we can go, we have to suit up and give each other code names like we did back in the 3rd grade. Yo Joe !! At this point the movie tries to pull off a bit of Predator (a.k.a- tactical squad takes on alien), but thankfully fails and stops trying. No way they can pull if off without Sonny Landham or a decent alien. They do have the Predator-like sweaty, bald black marine though.

This movie is pure homage to the FPS (first-person shooter), from the BFG (too bad they got that acronym wrong) weapon to the trip to the bathroom and to the inclusion of Carmack (a.k.a - John Carmack being the founder of ID Software, the maker of Doom and other fine products). The most lucrative of these is the FPS mode. First person mode (a.k.a - if you can stomach becoming Karl Urban) is quite gimmicky. It is far more interesting as a concept than actual execution. In a game it is part of the immerse nature of the environment, however, in a movie theater it seems a bit odd. I mean I would expect that if I went to Disney World, Epcot Center or somewhere in Las Vegas. My chair didn't move. My ass didn't get shocked. Did yours?? It came off more like something Uwe Boll (a.k.a - the Teutonic Terror) would do or of the caliber of the director of Romeo Must Die or Cradle 2 the Grave.

The monsters seem an odd collection of zombie, xeno-human and variation of xeno-human mutations. None are overly memorable and quite easily forgettable after their mutated gray matter gets splattered all over the walls. I mean we don't really even get a good "Boss" character. We get a re-hash. On a personal note, someone really needs to stop using Rosamund Pike as an actress. I haven't seen a decent, nor a different performance from her yet. I believe she is playing the same character she did in the Libertine, albeit without an overt English accent.

At least the director got one thing right about Doom; the crappy ending. This leads us to the type of director we have. Based on the fact that this was the worst movie the Rock has been in (don't get me wrong, he has been in some terrible movies, however, and his personality has managed to elevate the whole picture into enjoyable distractions). Instead of raising this movie up, the character and characterization of the "Sarge" just adds guano to the whole movie. In true FPS fashion, hit F7, restore another save point (preferably before you started watching this movie), say the magic word (Katsuhiko Kumanosuke Takaashi) and watch something else .... maybe like Crank. This is for Uwe : Watch Out!! Andrzej is on his way down to meet you.

Review of "Scoop" (2006)

Scoop (2006)

Should be called Snoop instead.

Tell me if you heard this joke.

A dead man's ghost wakes us on a boat on the river Styx. He then tries to bribe the ferryman, which results in nothing.

Haven't heard that one, eh ? Well thats probably because it's not a joke but rather the plot of a Woody Allen movie. To elaborate, a recently deceased well-known reporter (Ian McShane) is given an amazing "scoop" about a serial killer from another dead person, while on the boat crossing the river Styx. He then chooses to appear in the middle of a magic box magic trick, to a former dental hygienist turned college journalist (Scarlett Johansson). And the magic act is Splendini's (Woody Allen's magical alter ego).

This is a very, very light fare. Don't expect, nor should you look for, more than there is. I have had problems with most of Woody's later pieces. Lets just say his best material didn't leave the disco era. I did like Match Point (though I thought it was a bit long), but I believe that my enjoyment of it was due more to the nontraditional Woody' material and lack of the the director's presence in front of the camera. So the question everyone dances around is : is Woody still funny? I say not really. Why is that? Is it because his advancing age just make his "shtick" not funny or that it reminds us of our septuagenarian relatives (with all their nutty quirks)? Maybe it's because his cute neurosis became full fledge syndromes after 30 + years. It could also be that instead of trying to figure out a mystery, we end up accomplices in a game of lets find out what's in this drawer (aka, snooping). Hugh Jackman is barely used and the movie could have saved money if they just used a cardboard cutout of the actor. Scarlett Johansson is major eye candy, because I found her neophyte character portrayal to be lacking. She is the only reason this movie gets any rating past a yawn. So I say skip it, indulge your Woody wants in Annie Hall, Bananas, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex... or Sleeper.

Review of "The Descent" (2005)

The Descent (2005)

I didn't realize my high school English teacher wrote a movie script, with a curriculum level double-entendre title.

The movie with a grizzly and tragic beginning is most easily described using the vernacular of a stereotypical Hollywood executive :

"Little Women meets Pitch Black in the Hills Have Eyes, while tuned into National Georgraphic, with a side of Cannibal Holocaust poached with Lord of the Flies in a gravy of Machiavelli's Prince. Now this is all on a side of Predator. And for dessert, nothing but Brazil. This is all occurring on an island in a sea of estrogen."

It sounds like someone just regurgitated their lunch, but not to worry. It is the end result of the "mash-up" of other movie ideas. The uniqueness of this movie, the glue if you will, is that it all takes place in a cave. Oh wait, there's the Cavern and the Cave as well. I guess all you've got left is an "atmospheric mash-up", with an entirely female cast. Please feel free to use that term.. In typical "horror" genre guide-rules, one must remember to start the actual horror some time within the 2nd half of the movie (preferrably around the hour mark). Then remember to include lots of things jumping out at you (shock value), lots of gore and blood (more shock value), and finally lots and lots of screaming. There isn't much here; unless you really, really, really like cave exploring with 3 or 4 backstabbing dog-eat-dog females. This kind of shock horror I've seen done somewhere else (and better). It is a nice distraction on a lazy Saturday/Sunday afternoon. Just you and Jack Daniels, engaged in some cap-topping activities.