Movie Scum

What Are You Still Doing Here?!

2010-02-06T15:23:00.002-05:00

Still checking this page for new things? Well, knock it off! We've moved to a new site: www.movie-scum.com! Brand new layout, and the episodes now go on for as long as we feel like it! Visit us!

Movie Scum Episode #8 Promo!

2010-02-03T23:55:00.003-05:00

We have a new site! Please go to the new and improved Movie Scum and watch Episode #8! Longer videos, now that they are not uploaded to YouTube! Please bear with us as we continue to make the site better and more user friendly. All new posts with be published on that site, and not this one.

You Guys are Scum!

2010-02-02T23:26:00.004-05:00

This week's episode will be posted later tomorrow than usual. Sorry about that, but we will make sure it is worth the wait. In addition to that, we have a surprise coming...

At Least Use The Starship Song

2010-01-31T10:10:00.002-05:00

I saw Mannequin in the theater.

They are going to reboot this film. It better have Johnathan Silverman in it. For as you can see, the first one had Andrew McCarthy, and the second had Terry Kiser. So, in order to complete the Triumvirate, a reboot, remake or sequel, it must have Johnathan Silverman. Sadly, I do not think it will. Instead, it will apparently star Zac Efron. I assume that this will mean it will be some kind of gay musical, that pre-teens will rush to see. If it is, I demand that they use "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now" by Starship, which basically melted the cheese that was the first film.

If you haven't seen this movie, first, you should thank what ever deity you throw money at on your day of worship. Second, here's the basic story. Kim Cattrall is an ancient Egyptian who is cursed and turned in to a Mannequin and ends up in the future (1987) and can only come to life when Johnathan (coincidence?) Switcher is around. They work together to make the department store that Switcher works in the most successful in town. Brilliant.

I should be furious at this, but after thinking about it, it could be worse. They could remake it instead of reboot it, which would involve trying to recast the un-recastable. There is absolutely no way that anyone other than Meshach Taylor could play Hollywood. It would be a crime against humanity to have someone other than Estelle Getty play Ms. Timkin. And if anyone ever dares to recast any role played by Andrew McCarthy, they should be stoned to death. That being said, I am glad that it is a reboot, and cannot wait until they hip it up, and make a then irrelevant movie even more irrelevant to the young people, who will rub themselves to the thought of Zac Effron. You know what would be really funny? Have Kim Catrall play the mannequin again.

Best Scene: Maniac Cop 2

2010-01-30T13:33:00.001-05:00

I was going to write a random review of Maniac Cop 2, but I figured why bother? Most people probably have never even heard of it nor will ever see the series even though it features such talent as Bruce Campbell, Robert Davi, and Tom Atkins. As I previously noted, there is no North American DVD release which is rather bothersome considering the lesser-known DTV sequel Maniac Cop 3: Badge of Silence has a shiny disc dedicated to it. But in the end, this is not a good movie. It has its moments but here is hands-down the best sequence in the film.

Now, I may get around to writing a full review but I would have to start with the first movie. Use this to tide you over in the meantime.

News Roundup: Week of 1/29/10

2010-01-29T13:21:00.001-05:00

George Lucas' CG Fairy Musical Mystery: Our Theories
Will someone please take George Lucas' power and money away? For the sake for all that is holy ...

OMFG #2: Lionsgate Throws Violent Blow at Paramount: 'Saw' vs 'Paranormal Activity'... IT'S ON!
With the whole Leno/Conan thing out of the way, its time for Paramount and Lionsgate to battle via their competing horror franchises as well as torn directors.

The Sam Worthington Project Du Jour Is...DRACULA??
Sam Worthington as a vampire that actually kills people and who doesn't sparkle or mope. This could be a good thing.

DreamWorks to Show How Babies Eat, Sleep, Poop
More proof that Hollywood is plumb out of ideas.

Here Come More GREMLINS!?
I'm not sure what upsets me more: there will be another Gremlins movie or that it will be needlessly in 3D.

Bernie Returns? PBF is Going to be Mad

2010-01-28T18:24:00.001-05:00

Now, there are not very many details at this point so it is possible that this is just an empty threat from Hollywood, but Moviehole states Bernie Lomax may be resurrected to then die and pretend to be alive in a remake to PBF's beloved ultimate comfort movie Weekend at Bernie's. Could this be the chance for Andrew McCarthy and Jonathan Silverman to relive their fame and recover their fortune from the original film? Or will we have to suffer with actors lacking in the charisma to pull off the absurd plot of the film? So many questions, so little answers. Perhaps there can be a double feature between this and the remake of Mannequin as two movies which shouldn't have been made the first time, let alone remade.

Avatar: Unfortunate Victim of the Titanic Effect

2010-01-28T16:59:00.003-05:00

As you might have already heard, Avatar has smashed box office records, overtaking Titanic with a current worldwide gross of $1.8 billion as of this post. As it currently enjoys an 82% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the perceived experience of seeing Avatar in an 3D screening has seemingly overpowered some of the reported flaws of the film. Even if you actively try, you won't get far on any movie site or blog without mention of the film. I even sat through a 43 minute promotion of the film on Bones, one of my favorite television shows. Yet, in spite of the good reviews and constant promotion, I have no desire to see it.

Now, I can understand its importance in the film-making industry both in critical terms and in the pop culture zeitgeist. James Cameron is an excellent director who has managed to again create a film that is appealing to many demographics of movie-goers, making the film a must-see just to be current with the times. His use of the 3D effects to create the fictional world of Pandora has been lauded as the best aspect of the film and groundbreaking for the use of CGI in film. Even though its been said by many, including our own Digger, that the plot of the film is flimsy, a mere mashup of previous films, it obviously has not hurt the film financially.

So why don't I want to see this film, likely one that will be referenced and copied for years to come? Having heard so much positive about the movie over the past several weeks, I am almost positive if I see it, the over hyped film would fall flat especially with the numerous shortcomings I have read about. While I knew of a new Cameron movie prior to its release, I did not have a concept of the story or concept until the aforementioned Bones episode. As such I was not awaiting its release breathlessly as I was with Dark Knight and that has translated to a total sense of apathy about the movie, even a month after its release.

The final reason is something that I touched on in Digger's review: the Titanic effect. Basically, if there is a movie I do not want to see to begin with that goes on to win awards, critical praise, and break box office records, my desire to see it wanes accordingly. It's essentially a negative correlation between a movie's attention and the likelihood of it getting my money. Does this make any sense for a self-proclaimed film fan and someone who "write" (and I use the term loosely) for a movie site? Admittedly, it does not. But that's how I feel on the subject.

I liken myself more to being a film slob, one who enjoys watching cheese-ball fair more likely to win a Razzie to an Oscar-winning film about a lonely doctor in the Sahara that is a critical favorite. Now, eventually I will probably get around to watching the high-brow films that I tend not to see just as I will probably get around to watching Avatar. But for now, I would rather spend $8 to see The Wolfman over Avatar.

Random Movie: Hatchet (2006)

2010-01-27T23:30:00.004-05:00

Adam Green sure has been busy lately between the premiere of his newest film Frozen at Sundance this week as well as wrapping up filming of Hatchet 2, the sequel of today's random entry. When Hatchet first surfaced a few years ago, the biggest draw for me was the marketing for the film as a sort of callback to old-school 80s horror movies. No one (at least no one who is a friend of mine) can argue the greatness of all the cheesy, splatter-filled slasher movies of the 80s. In this manner, Hatchet somewhat succeeds as a "lost movie" from the bygone pinnacle of slasher flicks.

In the film, our heroes' venture out into a Louisiana swamp for a scary boat ride turns frighteningly real after running across Victor Crowley, a local legend who tragically died as a boy and now seeks to apparently create a bunch of amputees. The basic plot, and even backstory of Crowley, seems largely cribbed from the sub-genre classics with a deformed kid who is bullied constantly and dies at the hands of negligence. In some movies, the blatant homages would be enraging but not here. Green knows what this film owes to its predecessors and even offers cameos from genre vets of Tony Todd, Robert England, and even Kane Hodder, playing ol' Hatchet-face himself. The good thing is while the concept is similar to thousands of other movies, the execution is well-played to differentiate itself.

Unlike the source films, there was actually thought put into the casting of our leads with decent actors who can drive the story but coerce you to care whether they live or die. Joel David Moore, a hot commodity these days, was excellent as the heartbroken and socially awkward loser Ben. Deon Richmond is playing basically the same character from Scream 3 but that's cool as he was pretty funny in both. Even the final girl, Tamara Feldman is quite good as the tough chick and the damsel, depending on what was needed. We even had one of the lesser known Murray brothers!

Where Hatchet really gets it right is the gore. There's tons of it splattered around as limbs are ripped off, heads twisted, and body parts thrown throughout the woods. While this is a deviation from the 80s formula as the MPAA would have likely butchered it twenty years ago, it works well for the film as it definitely has a tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top attitude to match the blood and guts. My one complaint in this department though was that Crowley really wasn't that inventive as at least three-quarters of the deaths were either by some sort of head injury (mostly being twisted off) or body parts forcibly removed. Also, while he had a fairly decent backstory, Crowley as a serial killer didn't stand out as much as his brethren, looking like the love child of Pumpkinhead and Jason. Granted, the Hatchet series has but two titles (one of which still in production) and not dozens like the Friday the 13th series so it may be a bit early to judge on that front.

While I'm typically not a big fan of combining comedy and horror (really because most movies that try the two blow), Hatchet worked as the comedy was mostly pushed to the background when the shit started to hit the fan. As the movie progressed, some funny bits made a comeback to emphasize the upcoming scare which dragged the pace so I could have dealt with a little less of that. Regardless of the very minor flaws I have, it certainly is a fun movie to watch and experience. I will most assuredly catch the sequel later in the year when it comes out, and not just because the lovely Danielle Harris will be in it.

Movie Scum Episode #7

2010-01-27T01:06:00.002-05:00

As PBF is taking an Amish vacation for the next thirteen hours, allow me to present to you this week's episode of Movie Scum with Dana Carvey.

Random Movie: The Faculty (1998)

2010-01-26T03:40:00.002-05:00

The mid-nineties were an interesting time to be a horror fan. Since the old franchise favorites of Freddy and Jason were long gone with Michael Myers soon following, they were replaced by direct-to-video nonsense and faux-horror such as Hideaway or The Island of Dr. Moreau. Then came along Kevin Williamson, a guy who could write a decent screenplay full of homages to past genre staples complete with clever dialogue. After exploding in Hollywood with Scream, Williamson took his talents and tweeked them over and over, resulting in films like The Faculty.

At its core, this should not be a good movie. It was stacked with current and future WB and pop culture stars, featured established actors for a bit of gravitas, and almost blatantly ripped off countless other alien invasion films from many decades before. Add to this formula a fairly well established director, an eclectic mix of music, and a corporate sponsorship with accompanying commercials, you've got yourself a blockbuster going! Now, it may seem that I dislike this movie, but be aware: I do not.

The plot is just simple enough not to lose any of the ADHD-afflicted members of the audience with an alien being attempting to take control of a small Midwestern town beginning with the local high school. Our ragtag team of unlikely friends band together to try to stop the impending invasion and wrestle control back from the extraterrestrial hell-bent on taking over Earth. Consider it The Breakfast Club meets Alien with a random dash of other horror and sci-fi conventions and you have the basic premise.

Now, I won't kid you, or myself for that matter, and say that this is a masterpiece. At best it is an homage to Robert Heinlein and other sci-fi writers and at worst it is but a mere brick in the wing that the late nineties built Williamson. That said, as I recently watched this movie I enjoyed it as much as when it debuted during my tenure in high school.

For the most part, it is a fairly well-polished film with Dimension throwing good talent into the project. The acting is decent with most of the leads landing steady work in the next decade (Elijah Wood arguably being the most successful). The direction and editing by Robert Rodriguez is fairly well done with a sense of tension and even some decent jumps thrown in the mix as the invaders take over the school. And even though it feels like a half-assed remix of his previous work, Marco Beltrami's score gels with the frenetic pace of the film. If anything is amiss, it's Williamson's trademark rapid-fire, self-aware dialogue that begins to feel a little stale after his four thousand previous similar endeavors in the same vein.

In the end though, The Faculty is a fairly mediocre film: passable but nothing to write home about. If I had watched it for the first time today, I would likely be disappointed by the talent in front and behind the screen. But, having fond memories of sneaking into the theater on Christmas day and listening to the soundtrack while cruising in my Mazda 323, The Faculty will always hold my attention, in spite of my old age trying to prevent it.

What Constitutes a Spoiler?

2010-01-25T08:03:00.001-05:00

A few episodes ago on the awesome Movie Scum video series we discussed anti-feel-good movies. One of the films that came up was the 2004 remake Dawn of the Dead where I pretty much gave away the ending, saying "Sorry if you haven't seen it, the movie's been out for five years." While we typically try to avoid important plot developments in the reviews that we write, shouldn't there be an agreed upon statute of limitations for what is considered a spoiler?

While I was stalking the message boards for A Nightmare on Elm Street 3, one of the posts was about the death of a fairly important character to the franchise. Admittedly, this character's name was in the title of the post but one of the responses left me absolutely baffled.

Usually such a post would contain the word SPOILER in the title, so as not to give the plot away for people who have not yet seen the movie, like me....

Now, ignoring the fact that the movie is over twenty years old at this point, why would someone who has yet to see a film go to a board specifically for the discussion of that movie and get pissed that a plot point is discussed? By the same argument, to protect the stupid, should every movie, either new release or fifty-year-old classic have spoiler alerts for every minute detail? While I may be guilty of trolling boards for films (or even TV shows) I haven't seen, I don't get pissed because IT'S MY OWN DAMN FAULT!

To use a more recent example, Cinematical ran a discussion about a plot development in the recent Book of Eli. In the article, a few theories were banded about to explain the twist at the ending of the film. Some who left comments were upset the piece had ruined the film ... by disclosing there is a twist ending. Is the mere knowledge of a pending twist ending the same as giving the specifics? I say not as the person who left that comment is a moron as they would have had to read (or at least skim) the entire article to even leave the comment. In fact, both of these idiots deserve a swift kick in the nuts to reduce the chances of reproduction and a complimentary copy of the spoiler T-Shirt so they can bitch in private about films being ruined instead of online.

With that rant over, can we decide for Movie Scum what is and is not off limits? Spoilers only after a jump in the page? No specifics in the video series? Or are you reasonable and know that spoilers may pop up on a site that talks about MOVIES! Let us know in the comments (although I can't guarantee we will stick to it).

Unsung Heroes: Joe Estevez

2010-01-22T11:48:00.003-05:00

Ever since Mystery Science Theater 3000 made a triumphant return, I have been devouring as many episodes as I can stand. Last night, I indulged in a hapless film about a werewolf, quite originally titled Werewolf, and saw a quasi-familiar name pop up in the opening credits: Joe Estevez.

As Mike and the 'bots made a quip about Charlie's uncle being the biggest star in the film, I thought it was just an odd coincidence, not knowing there is an untapped wealth of Estevezes lurking around Hollywood. In Joe's case, I was astonished that he has been featured in close to two hundred films and none of which I have ever seen or even heard of. In fact, the only recognizable title on his resume was Apocolyse Now where he did uncredited voice-over work.

I guess just like any other family, you have those with talent and achievement and others who get parts because they look like a haggard Martin Sheen at a fraction of the cost. Its sad that Joe has remained off the radar for those who do not comb through the direct-to-video bins o' shlock. Can't his own brother or even his nephews throw him a bit role to get him in the limelight? An actor cannot rely on cheesy movies alone since MST3K is unable to give any more promotion or residuals.

Regardless, I'll be pulling for you Joe!

Music Scum

2010-01-22T10:16:00.006-05:00

There has been many a movie based on the lives and careers of musicians and bands. More recently, The Runaways (about the band of the same name with Joan Jett and Lita Ford), Notorious (Notorious B.I.G.), What We Do is Secret (Germs). There are also some classics such as La Bamba (Ritchie Valens), Selena (Selena Quintanilla-Perez), Amadeus (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri) just to name a small few to demonstrate the broad range of musicians immortalized on film. On the flip side of this, there quite a bit of stories yet to be told with a well produced/directed/acted film. Because I am bored, I have compiled a small list of artists' stories that I would like to see dramatized.

1. Ian MacKaye and the D.C. Hardcore scene. A movie about this could show the formation of possibly hundreds of bands that were a result of this scene or people involved in it. With Ian MacKay alone, you have Minor Threat, Fugazi, Teen Idles, Pailhead, Embrace and The Evens. Ian MacKaye's Dischord record label put out some of the best music ever. We could see the origins of Henry Rollins's music career, the first Emo band Rites of Spring, and many many other important events and people in music history.

2. Wu-Tang Clan. There is a documentary out there and a dramatic film "in the works," but let's get it done already. The Wu-Tang Clan has been around and revered long enough for a film to have already been made about them. I imagine the casting would be rough, finding 9 actors to play them, as I would only assume that they would have equal screen time. You would also have to cast Cappadonna, who "replaced" the late ODB while he was incarcerated. A lot of the Clan's group albums as well as solo albums are some of the best rap/hip hop albums out there and most of the Clan has have quite successful solo careers.

3. Seattle Grunge Scene. While there is a movie by Gus Van Sant called Last Days, that may or may not be based on Kurt Cobain (look at a poster for it), I would like to see a film based on the band and that whole scene in general. Like the D.C. Hardcore scene, the Seattle scene was filled with musicians that band hopped, filled in for each other and seemed like a huge group of friends all jamming with each other rather than competing bands. We would see bands like Melvins, Mudhoney, Screaming Trees, Green River, Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam and many other in this film. While I may disagree with the constant dissection and sub-categorization of music, especially spawned from the "Alternative" sub type, the fact remains that Nirvana is credited with causing a movement. I think it would make for an interesting study of how music was for the people involved in it prior to Smells Like Teen Spirit and then after. Some people became famous, while others remained underground.

4. Mötley Crüe. Sure. Go ahead and laugh. But this movie would have it all. Sex, drugs, lead singer killing someone in a car accident. I mean, these fucking guys INJECTED liquor. Read that sentence again. It doesn't say ingested. INJECTED. Into their veins. Nikki Sixx and Ozzy Osbourne had a contest to see who to perform the sickest act! Are you kidding me?! Supposedly, The Dirt, based on the book, will be out in 2011, so hopefully it will satisfy my desire to see famous people destroy themselves.

5. Vanilla Ice. On second thought, no.

As a side note to this article, I was discussing the movie Last Days with Puck and our friend Phil, and his suggestion of a plot line of a film about Kurt Cobain was as follows: "Aaahhh, I'm singing, aaah, my stomach hurts, aaaah my wife's a whore, aaaaah, boom."

Movie Scum Episode #6!

2010-01-20T00:23:00.002-05:00

MacGyver was a show on ABC starring Richard Dean Anderson. He could make a bomb out of a toothpick, a coffee filter and dreams.

Skin That Smoke Wagon! Top 9 Movie Fire-Arms

2010-01-18T04:56:00.009-05:00

In the real world, guns are dangerous, deadly devices that should always be handled with care and respect. In movies, however, guns are awesome! Even more awesome are the futuristic guns that only exist in frantic, action-packed movie fire fights. Here are my top 9 favorite fictional fire-arms.

9. Blamethrower (Mystery Men)
The only non-lethal gun on the list, this bazooka-esque heavy weapon, designed and built by Doc Heller, fires an invisible beam that causes groups of enemies to become very angry with one another, rendering them combat-ineffective.

8. M41a Pulse Rifle (Aliens)
Arguably the most versatile weapon in the space marine arsenal, this gun combines the automatic fire of the M1A1 Thompson with an under-slung pump-action SPAS12 shotgun, loaded in the film with small grenades.

7. Samaritan (Hellboy)
A big demon that hunts other big demons needs an edge, and Hellboy's massive revolver fits the bill. Not only is the gun itself made from mystical materials (wood from the true cross, blessed silver, etc.) but chambers four huge rounds with specific designs to harm supernatural monster types.

6. Proton Pack (Ghostbusters)
Sure, bustin' makes you feel good, but the long term health effects of carrying around an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on your back have yet to be documented. What ever you do with it, don't cross the streams.

5. Noisy Cricket (Men In Black)
A deceptively tiny side-arm with a lot of gusto. Presumably reverse-engineered from alien technology, this weapon fires a focused sonic wave that blasts through any targets and knocks its user on his ass. Do not discharge in view of the public.

4. Railgun with X-Ray Scope (Eraser)
As if a rifle that uses electromagnetic coils to propel a projectile at mach seven isn't deadly enough, this version includes a targeting system capable of scanning through walls to kill people more effectively.

3. Cobra Assault Cannon (RoboCop)
Built on the same frame as the real life Barret M82A1 .50 BMG, OCP's state-of-the-art anti-vehicle weapon fires high-explosive rounds able to obliterate the otherwise bad-ass ED-209 in a single shot.

2. Zorg model ZF-1 (The Fifth Element)
Three thousand round magazine, adjustable handle, undetectable by X-Ray, includes rocket launcher, net launcher, arrow launcher, with exploding or poisonous arrow-heads, flamethrower, ice-cube cryo-blast system, need I go on?

1. Smart Gun (Runaway)
The only thing more frightening than Gene Simmons without his KISS make-up is a pistol that fires tiny, explosive rockets capable or tracking a target down where ever he or she tries to run or hide. It's the ultimate one shot kill.

Be Ready to Jump

2010-01-14T20:37:00.006-05:00

When the FOX network was just a little girl, she had a delightful program that I rather enjoyed called 21 Jump Street. Stephen J. Cannell was such a genius. If you are only a casual fan of Johnny Depp, or are just not familar with this part of his resume, do yourself a favor and check out a few episodes. But try to remember it took place in the late 80's and early 90's. While he had already been in A Nightmare on Elm Street and a few other things, if you look at his resume, he career pretty much took off after Jump Street. This show was about some cops that looked young enough to pass as a high school students, so they would go undercover and form friendships with troubled youths and tear those friendships in to pieces by revealing that they were cops, and arresting them or their friends. They would tackle serious issues like drug use, AIDS, depression, and others. Fairly often there would be a PSA style message after the show, presented by the actors, ala G.I. Joe. I was a pretty big fan of this show. I remember the episode Orpheus 3.3, in which Johnny Depp's character, Tom Hanson and his girlfriend Amy are in a convenience store that gets robbed and Amy get shot and killed. Hanson becomes consumed with guilt, thinking that he should have been able to do something. He watches and re watches the surveillance video of the shooting over and over, and isolates the incident down to 3.3 seconds. Clearly deranged, he starts figuring out all the things that one can do in that same amount of time, such as how many times you can ring a doorbell, opening beer cans, etc.

So, PBF, what in the hell does any of this have to do with Movie Scum? Well, jackass, there is a film version planned. Jonah Hill is apparently writing and producing it, and is so adamant about doing it his way, he has stated that he will walk if they do not let him. Accroding to Hill, "[Audiences are] not expecting what it's going to be. It's not a parody of the show. I'm not playing Johnny Depp's character… It's a group of people that go back to high school to deal with a drug problem. To deal with crime in high school." That doesn't sound too surprising, does it? "It's a funny movie with a lot of great action and a real story. I've been saying that it's like a John Hughes movie with Bad Boys style action."

If in fact, it is not a parody, I am good with that. Jonah Hill? Uh, I guess I am not that worried. I mean, I don't know if he can write, but he sure is funny. Just don't be in it, Jonah. That would be inappropriate. And I swear to God, if Richard Grieco is in it, hostages will be taken.

Movie Scum Episode #5!

2010-01-13T00:51:00.003-05:00

Sadly, I ruin the ending. Try to ignore that part.

Most Jarring Recasts

2010-01-10T21:11:00.001-05:00

I'm sure you've all been victim to the recast monster. It takes no mercy for greed, on-screen sheninigans, or scheduling conflicts. It has no reason, no sense of remorse, or even common sense. It is willing to break your suspension of disbelief and continuity just for fun. Here are just a few random recastings that I though of which make little to no sense.

Victoria - Twilight series
Perhaps the most recent of these offenses is Bryce Dallas Howard taking over for Rachelle Lefevre in the third of the Twilight series. The official reason was cited as scheduling conflicts. Obviously having not seen the upcoming Eclipse, I cannot pass judgment on the new interpretation of the Victoria character, but the filmmakers should have exercised a bit more caution when dealing with riled-up 14-year-olds and Twi-moms. They seem to take this stuff seriously.

Kristen - Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3 & Part 4
From what I can gather, Patricia Arquette was unable to return to the role of Kristen for Nightmare 4 due to pregnancy. A valid reason but that doesn't make the shift any less jarring, especially considering they were able to bring back Joey and Kincaid with the same actors. It would be one thing if the whole bunch was recast like the Griswald kids, but having two of the three return is a bit awkward.

Jack Ryan - Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games & Sum of All Fears
Jack Ryan is a rather popular character in the paperback world having been featured in twelve novels by Tom Clancy. Yet we have only four movies over the course of twelve years played by three different actors. The constant changing of James Bond seems to actually help the series reinvent itself. While Jack Ryan could have (or possibly still) become as household as Jason Bourne, he is not an established cinematic character and thus, the series suffers from the constant delays and turnover.

George McFly - Back to the Future series
Originally portrayed by Crispin Glover, subsequent sequels in the series used a different actor for the character of Marty's father. There are conflicting stories about why the character was recast from the favorite "creative differences" to Glover requesting an unreasonable sum of money to reprise the role. As such, the character was killed off in the sequel and barely featured in the third, minimizing what was an integral part of the series. While the stories make Glover rather buffoon-ish for not returning, the producers dealt with it in an interesting way, hiding the replacement actor behind make-up or creative camera angles.

Jamie Lloyd - Halloween 4, Part 5, & Part 6
This is the recast which pissed me off the most as the lovely Danielle Harris was kicked to the curb for a cheaper replacement, only to have the character killed off in the first ten minutes of the film. Actually, I might have been more pissed to see such a beloved character played by the same actress meet such a fate. Perhaps the producers were attempting to do us a favor to distract us from the sheer awfullness of the film. But I'm still pissed about it.

I could go on all day but I will stop here. What are some other recasts, good or bad, that caught you off guard?

Reduce, Reuse, Remake!

2010-01-09T00:33:00.009-05:00

It's no secret that Hollywood producers are scared to death of original ideas. One just has to look at the past decade of films to see that most big budget movies released in theaters are adaptations of existing stories (novels, short stories, and most recently, comic books) or sequels of successful and some not-so successful films. (seriously, Jumper 2?) But now, we are living in the age of the remake, and it pisses me off to no end. Why adapt or continue a good story when you can just take a preexisting movie and re-shoot it? There's already a built-in audience that loves the property, and that audience doesn't have to be worried about coping with new ideas or unexpected plot twists. Just look at the release line-up for 2010 and 2011. It's packed full of “new” movies that are remakes of classics, remakes of foreign films, and, most absurdly, remakes of remakes.

I'll forgive that some older movies like Fritz Lang's Metropolis from 1927 might benefit from a modern retelling. Even some not-so-old movies like Flash Gordon from 1980 could look good with a current generation face-lift, maybe. But almost all of these upcoming remakes just make my blood boil.

Horror movies seem to have some kind of remake bull's eye on them. George A. Romero's The Crazies and Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street both have remakes slated to hit theaters early this year, and John Carpenter is next on the chopping block, with The Thing and They Live scheduled for updated bastardizations in 2011. Come on, guys, The Thing IS a remake. I think the world will be just fine without that CG abomination. Even worse than that is Hollywood's apparent need to make English speaking versions of perfectly great foreign films, specifically The Orphanage and Let the Right One In, that were released just TWO YEARS AGO! And this is just the baby-toe of the hideously rehashed cinematic iceberg that's in store for us in the near future. The Blob, Poltergeist, Logan's Run, Short Circuit, Sunset Boulevard, Suspiria, Highlander, The Karate Kid, Footloose, An American Werewolf in London, Billy Jack, Red Dawn, Total Recall, Hard Boiled, Akira, Scanners, Barbarella, Revenge of the Nerds, The Fly, The Host, Dune, Sharky's Machine, Rosemary's Baby... Do you think that's enough?!

The worst, by far, is a movie scheduled for release this year called The King of Kong. If you can believe this, it's a scripted remake of a documentary that came out in 2007 about two men fighting for the Donkey Kong high score world record. I own the documentary on DVD, and it is awesome, but this remaking a documentary idea is just surreal. What does anyone hope to accomplish by remaking a documentary?

News Roundup: Week of 1/8/10

2010-01-08T16:24:00.006-05:00

TWISTER 2: Twistin' The Night Away?!?!?
This is a movie that would work well in 3D. While the original was certainly not the pinnacle of disaster movies, it was rather fun. I support this.

'Zombieland' Scribes to Tackle 'G.I. Joe' Sequel?
While PBF may have disappoved of their previous cinematic entry, the positives of Zombieland may give these guys yet another chance.

'District 9' Prequel is Possible
As prequels generally are not that interesting, if this has a good mix of the initial human/alien integration and how things lead to the events of District 9, it might make for a good film ... or a really bad cash-in.

'The Thing' Prequel Begins Lensing This March
I will fully admit that The Thing is not a perfect movie, but it was damn fine but I cannot see how a remake will add anything to the excellence of its predecessor. Actually, the fact that there is going to be a remake of a remake of a remake is rather funny.

I Love It When a Plan Comes Together

2010-01-08T12:10:00.003-05:00

Just a quick post to show you this.

And the 3D Train Keeps Chugging Along

2010-01-08T09:29:00.001-05:00

The collective filmgeeks of the world cheered when it was announced that Darren Aronofsky would be helming a remake of 1987's RoboCop as an attempt to breathe life into this once great franchise which has fallen mightily. However, the production company's financial woes not only have resulted in the film being pushed back but may even cost the world a semi-decent remake of a beloved film.

The near-defunct MGM has dictated to Aronofsky that the reboot shall be made in 3D or else. Having a scant, but still highly lauded, number of titles to his name, Aronofsky does not seem to be a guy to make a movie for the money. As such, the presumed director is more than willing to walk as opposed to making a movie he does not want to.

As I have previously asked, what is the big f-in deal with movies in 3D? Sure, it may work for gimmicky horror movies like My Bloody Valentine or Friday the 13th Part III with axes and eyeballs careening toward the audience, but short of the totally immersed effect of a film like Avatar, it does not add to the film as a whole, it only makes it look more ridiculous when 3D falls out of fad again.

Please MGM, let this movie be made but get your grubby, plagiarist fingers out of the pie. I will be highly pissed should the remake of Robocop fall into the same claptrap of teenage stars, gimmicky effects, and generally crappiness that have befallen so many other remakes in the past ten years.

Random Movie: Avatar (2009)

2010-01-08T00:56:00.022-05:00

No one can deny that the trucker turned film-maker James Cameron has been one of Hollywood's biggest movers and shakers of the last several decades. Movies like Aliens, The Abyss, and Terminator 2 have not only cemented Cameron's name in the halls of movie history, but were also big parts of my childhood, shaping my expectations of how amazing a science fiction film could be.

After a twelve year hiatus and some deep sea documentaries, Cameron returns to the director's chair for his new sci-fi opus, Avatar. The story is fairly simple. A paraplegic space marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is dispatched to the alien world of Pandora, where a corporate mining operation is trying to gather a rare and expensive mineral ore. The planet is filled with giant, aggressive creatures, chief among these being an intelligent tribal culture called the Na'vi. To avoid violence, the company's scientists, headed by Doctor Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) have engineered several avatar bodies, which look like the 14 foot tall natives and are remotely piloted by humans via a complex electronic interface. Jake Sully has been brought onto the project to control the avatar intended for his now dead twin brother. Apparently, some kind of genetic compatibility is required between avatar and pilot and Jake is the closest genetic match available. There mission is to infiltrate the Na'vi tribe and peacefully convince them to relocate away from their giant tree village as it sits on a monstrous deposit of the priceless metal. Jake's avatar meets the tribe's resident warrior princess Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and is accepted into the Na'vi tribe where he learns of their ways and their connection to the planet. (This does bring up one of the more aggravating elements of the film where the Na'vi can plug their brains into the planet's various flora and fauna through nerves in their hair. Taking the idea that these people have a spiritual connection with nature, then making it literal seems childish.) Eventually, when the peace talks break down, Jake has to choose between completing his mission or defending the Na'vi against the corporations fierce mercenary army gunning to wipe them all out. (Although Jake's major motivation throughout the film seems to be getting some blue alien pussy.)

The movie's main appeal is in its costly and well crafted visual presentation. I saw the movie in 3-D and seeing it in this format adds to the film's immersive atmosphere. Surprisingly, it has none of the gimmicky “throwing objects at the audience” moments that one might expect. The film does have a running time of well over two hours, so some people, myself included, will have an eye-trickery induced headache by the time the credits roll, if not before. I wouldn't call any of the singular special effects used throughout the movie innovative or ground-breaking, as rendered CG environments, creatures, vehicles, and motion-captured characters have all been used in movies since the mid-90's. What is ground-breaking is the way all of these elements are integrated together to create a striking and memorable visual whole. All of the Na'vi acting and creature riding and battle scenes play out seamlessly. As for the non-visual elements, well... Sam Worthington is passable as the story's protagonist but his performance never really got me cheering for his character, but that may be the screen-writer's fault. The stand out performances are defiantly Sigourney Weaver, being a sci-fi heroine veteran, and a surprisingly moving Zoe Saldana in her motion capture performance of Neytiri, the blue cat-people equivalent of Pocahontas. (fortunately, she never breaks into a musical number) All of the other supporting characters are remarkably one-dimensional, my cheesy favorites being Stephen Lang (you might remember him as Ike Clanton from 1993's Tombstone) playing a blood thirsty mercenary Colonel who might as well have been named Duke Nukem, and Giovanni Ribisi playing pretty much the exact same corporate douche bag that Paul Reiser portrayed in Aliens. I also have to mention Michelle Rodriguez, here playing the same hard-nosed chick that she's played in almost every movie she's ever been in, and it's getting old.

Some people have complained about the story being weak or that its just a rehash of Dances with Wolves or Ferngully, and yes, the plot is paper-thin, but my biggest gripe with this production is the disappointingly lackluster musical score. Composer James Horner really dropped the ball on this one. At no point is there a memorable lick or theme that a grand, sweeping, epic movie like this really needs to compliment the scope of the action that is being shown on screen. James Cameron really should have spent an extra million dollars to get John Williams on this project. Overall this movie is, at the very least, great to look at, but a few things like the score, the uninspired writing, and the ham-fisted environmental and anti-imperialist messages really hold it down from being a timeless classic. It's not the herald of a new era in film-making that the advertisements promised, and certainly not as good as some of the other movies on James Cameron's resume.

Random Movie: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

2010-01-07T22:41:00.007-05:00

This movie is a piece of shit. I am actually angry at it. I am angry that it looked at me in the face, and had the balls to fucking show me the things it showed me. You want to know where I rank this movie in it's genre? In the same bracket as Super Mario Bros. and Street Fighter. Not the animated Street Fighter; the live action one. The one where Guile, an American, is played by a Belgian who can barely speak English.

Here's the skinny on the plot of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra: There are warheads that have nanomites in them. Nanomites eat metal (and everything else, but emphasis was placed on the eating of metal). They also can do other things, such as reconstruct faces and push the venom of a cobra right back out of a person's arm. They can also be used in mind control. Anyway, Duke and Ripcord have them, Baroness tries to steal them, G.I. Joe saves Duke and Ripcord and the warheads, Baroness and Storm Shadow, et al successfully steal them. There you go. Cobra has not officially formed as a "unit" at this point, like G.I. Joe has, but all they key players are there.

G.I. Joe storyline aside, this movie is just horrible. Really bad acting. I mean REALLY bad. Dennis Quaid must have smelled like brie after filming his scenes. Some of the action sequences were alright, I guess, but mostly they were a horrible mess, some way too long, and completely implausible. The film reeked of standard cheesey action movie formula, what with the needless "funny" lines, such as when the Baroness just shot a machine gun to clear out an area, forces a woman off an elevator and then says, "Nice shoes." In fact, she gets the award for character with the worst lines. Right after a huge crash, she crawls out and says, "Next time, I drive." There is the obligatory evil villain sharing his plans with the good guy that has been captured but that he will fail to kill. There is also exposition, casually detailed in akwardly placed dialogue. Can't forget the montage of people being trained while a stupid song plays (Bang a Gong by T-Rex). There is a long list of things that are wrong factually and in regard to continuity. Too many to list. In lieu of that, here is a small list of things that I hate about it:

1. Rip Cord makes mention of Kung Fu grip
2. Hawk says, "Knowing is half the battle."
3. Rex says, "This guy is a real American hero."
4. When Baroness and Storm Shadow steal the warheads, Hawk presses an alarm button on his desk. The other Joes are hanging out, chillin', and when it goes off, someone yells, "Cobra has the warheads!" Are you fucking kidding me? They made an alarm specifically for that?
5. Baroness has no accent.
6. There is a flashback for every fucking character. Fortunately most of them knew each other somehow, so they combined multiple charcaters' into one.
7. The casting. Oh my God, the casting.
8. The obvious open door for a sequel, meaning that while I make an hourly wage, there will be rain forests slaughtered to write the paychecks of those involved in another one of these fucking things. I provide more entertainment than this movie.

I don't really understand why this movie is rated PG-13 and not R. There is a lot of on screen killing and language. There is honestly not one good thing about this movie. Skip it.

Random Move: Up (2009)

2010-01-07T13:15:00.011-05:00

In an effort to distract my daughter from wanting to watch Curious George (and I must admit, I wanted to see it as well) I put the movie Up on. She has seen it many times, but I had never. I am normally not a fan of Disney movies, or animated movies in general (despite my affections for TV shows like Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Ren and Stimpy, Invader Zim and others), but having watched Wall-E with my daughter, I have since changed that. I have assumed it is because both these films are Pixar, and from what I understand, they have an excellent track record.

Up is the story of Carl Fredericksen, a 78 year old (voiced by Ed Asner), as he tries to make it to Paradise Falls, an adventure planned with his wife before she died, and ultimately having it's roots in his childhood. They were obsessed with exploring new places and with an explorer named Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer). To accomplish this, he flies his house, which is where he met his late wife in childhood, powered by balloons, to South America. Much to his chagrin, Russell, a boy scout in uniform has accompanied him. He was looking for a non existent bird that Carl told him to find, so that he could earn his last merit badge for assisting and elderly person. They land on the wrong side of Paradise Falls and have to walk to it, lugging the house with them. The run across a bird (which Russell thinks is a "Snipe," the kind of bird he was originally looking for) and name her Kevin, and a dog named Doug that has a collar that translates what he is saying in to English (and other languages for that matter).

This film is really well done. First off, Ed Asner is great. He just delivers his lines with perfection as an old man trying to fulfill his promise to his late wife, Ellie. He lives in the only house left on a block that is being commercialized by a construction company and refuses to sell the house, as it is the home he met Ellie in, and also where they lived. Very often he is downtrodden and morose, but he can also delivier the comedic lines with no problem. Visually the movie is quite stunning as well, but honestly, it is really a fine film just by movie standards alone. The dialogue is quite clever. Carl: "...with no rap music or flashdancing." Doug: "I just met you and I love you." He also says, "Point!" when he is trying to get you to look at something. The film takes you on quite an emotional journey. In fact, so much so, that I question the target demoraphic. The montage that shows Carl growing up and going through life with Ellie and her ultimate passing, is actually quite heartbreaking. Throughout the movie, he often sits in his chair, and stares at hers, which is now empty. He crosses his heart, indicating that he will make it to Paradise Falls, as they often dreamed, and even had a jar full of money to help fund. I feel that this may be a tad too adult for a child my daughter's age, who may have questioned what happened when she first watched it (I was not there), and then resulted in a talk about death. Another thing that impressed me about it, is that the characters are pulling a house by a hose, that is floating in the sky. It's quite absurd. Yet you really do not think about that during the action of the film. It actually, is quite believeable in the context of the story, and very neccessary for the plot. I found myself laughing outloud a few times. Especially at Doug. He, and the other dogs, will stop what they are saying and yell, "Squirrel!" whenever they see one, consistent with a dog's short attention span. He speaks very matter of factly, "I will get it and bring it back to you!" as I imagine a dog would speak if it could. I also like how the "evil" dogs keep referring to Russell as the "small mailman." There are some issues with the movie that irk my OCD. When Carl is looking through pictures of He and Ellie, there are some that are in their house, or on a picninc, where they are completely in frame, and I assume by themselves. In the montage, there was never any one else in it except them (execpt at at the wedding or at the doctor's office when we learn Ellie cannot have children), so I question who would have taken those pictures. They did not seem to spend any time with friends or family. Also, I have major issues in any scene of any movie where there is a target in plain sight, unobscured, yet the team of people shooting at it for half an hour, cannot seem to hit it. This occured when Russell was hanging in the sky on the hose, and 3 dogs were flying planes (and apparently reciting dialogue from Star Wars, however calling themselves grey squadron rather than red squadron. dogs are colorblind) trying to shoot him. Yes, I know, it is a cartoon, and I should get over it. I did.

Up is just a really well put together film, animated or not. It is quite superior to many live action pieces of crap that are out there. In all aspects. And beginning to end. You bond and care for the characters, you may even find yourself on the edge of your seat once or twice, you may cry, and you surely will laugh. Definitely recommend seeing this movie, especially if you do not normally watch animated films.

Random Movie: Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus (2009)

2010-01-07T11:05:00.010-05:00

The word “versus” is usually reserved for boxing matches, Supreme Court cases, and film titles that begin with the name Godzilla or Gamera. I imagine that this film was intended to entertain the same head space as other giant monster classics, but Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus falls short of even that minimalistic criteria.

This flick comes to us curtsey of The Asylum, a direct-to-DVD company with a rather dubious track record. Mostly, they make cheaply and horribly produced movies with titles suspiciously similar to big-budget blockbusters. Such movies include Transmorphers, Death Racers, Sunday School Musical, and The Day the Earth Stopped, most likely hoping that confused consumers hunting for the latest releases will buy their movies by accident. I'm almost amazed by a company who's marketing strategy seems to have been devised by some giant, carnivorous plant. But I'm not talking about those flicks, I'm talking about a movie with a plot and production values that are laughable even by B-movie standards. The story, if you can call it that, centers around an oceanic researcher named Emma (Deborah Gibson) who is looking way worse in this movie than an otherwise attractive 39-year-old woman should. On an unauthorized expedition, Emma witnesses our titular shark and octopus escaping from within a frozen glacier due to a separate but equally unauthorized military sonar experiment. Apparently, these two behemoths have survived, frozen in this icy prison, for several million years. Of course, no one believes her claims until the two titans start their respective rampages, attacking oil refineries and the like. This includes a side-splittingly hilarious scene where the mega shark leaps several thousand feet from the water to attack a jet-liner in mid flight.

Eventually, the military takes Emma into custody and transports her to some kind of factory or water treatment plant, that is supposed to pass for an Air Force Base, to devise a plan to destroy both monsters. There she meets Alan (Lorenzo Lamas) and I'm not sure if he has any actual military rank, but he does fill the role of ass-hole government stooge for this picture. (Come on, Lorenzo, I thought you were a renegade.) The military is, of course, completely unable to harm either creature with conventional weapons and it's up to the scientists to lure the shark and octopus toward one another so they can kill each other, reaffirming the theory that the only thing capable of killing a giant monster is another giant monster. The second half of the movie is composed almost entirely of unconvincing CG effects that would have been laughed out of a Play Station game, and scenes of scientists and officers yelling at one another across big tables.

This movie fails on every front, acting, writing, special effects, but at least, in it's own terrible way, it's consistent. Even the otherwise boring scenes of people doing nothing besides talking and arguing strategies are lifted by awful performances and some howlingly bad dialogue. If you can stomach some really bad movies or take any kind of masochistic satisfaction in sitting through a cinematic train-wreck, then give Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus a watch. You won't be disappointed, well, you will be disappointed, but that's kind of the point.

Random Movie: The Thing (1982)

2010-01-07T00:32:00.005-05:00

Surprisingly, I had been missing out on John Carpenter's The Thing until a few years ago when a friend of mine turned me on to it. I thought it was a very effective movie and the DVD was great, featuring commentary by Carpenter and Kurt Russell as well as an in depth documentary on the making of the film. Sadly, my original DVD was not anamorphic so I had no desire to watch the film in recent years until I upgraded my disc to the re-release from a few years back. For some reason, I didn't remember much from the film so it was almost like watching it for the first time all over again.

A loose remake of the 1951 film The Thing from Another World, Carpenter's version puts us in the middle of an Antartic research team who uncover a monstrous alien who has already devastated another research camp. As the being infiltrates the tight group of men, it takes their appearance and mannerisms leading them to doubt as to who is human and who is not. It is a very simplistic story, one which has been ripped off (or maybe its an homage depending on where you stand) by other films and even TV series.

It works so well because it is very well-produced (one of Carpenter's best in my opinion) and has a great confined atmosphere of dread. It is really not a scary movie. It has a few jumps but more importantly, it has a palpable tension especially as the characters start putting the pieces together and figuring out that something is not right.

One of the biggest standouts of the film is the effects by Rob Bottin to create the creature. As it changes from a dog to a venus-fly-trap-headed man to even as a man's head separates from the rest of his body as the alien tries to survive, the visuals of the monster are genuinely frightening, never looking gimmicky or fake. This is a movie that special effects gurus should look to for why practical effects are much more effective and realistic than crap-looking CGI which may allow more creativity but destroys any credibility.

Its a real shame that Carpenter has been on a decline and all but disappeared over the past several years. While I haven't seen all of his films, I have seen a fair amount to be able to tell the difference between old Carpenter classics like Prince of Darkness or Halloween and new Carpenter dreck like Village of the Damned and Ghosts of Mars. He seems to have returned to form recently with his well reviewed episode of Masters of Horror and his upcoming film The Ward.

Let's hope that the threatened Thing remake either fizzles out or turns out to be decent. While it won't destroy the original, I don't think Carpenter could use another dud, even if its just in credit only.

Movie Scum Episode #4 is on YouTube!

2010-01-05T23:10:00.003-05:00

Our favorite things to say: "Indeed." "In that same vein." "Fair enough." "Ultimately."

If it will not play, click the HQ button.

Random Movie: The Hangover (2009)

2010-01-03T01:12:00.007-05:00

Las Vegas. Muse for many a film maker. From the not so good, to The Hangover. I assumed that this film would be some kind of hybrid of Dude, Where's My Car? and Very Bad Things. It surely, is not. Because it was actually funny.

Basically we have 4 guys going to Vegas for a blowout before Doug (Justin Bartha) gets married. Doug's character is pretty much irrelevant to this review, as they lose him, and spent the mojority of the movie trying to find him while piecing together the events of the previous night, which they all cannot remember. You have Stu (Ed Helms), who basically freaks out at everything, as he is very tightly wound around his girlfriend's (Rachel Harris) vagina and does not wish to upset her. Also, there is Phil (Bradley Cooper, dreamboat), who apparently is a dirtbag to all the women in the film, but is oddly the most level headed and calm in most of the chaos that is going on. Finally there is, Alan (Zach Galifinakis, Fat Jesus, not Phat Jesus) who is just a slight bit odd, and possibly a retard (emphasis on "tard"). With all your hilarious character defects in place and someone to offset them, the movie can begin.

What I liked about this movie, was when everyone wakes up in the hotel room the morning after, there is all kinds of lunacy happening. A tiger, a chicken, a smoking chair, a baby. My first thought was, "this movie will never successfully explain all of this to me in a plausible fashion." But it actually does, and without even being that outlandish. Let me just say, as every other review does, the chicken is never explained, so I will just assume it is a comedy device. I mean, as we all know, chickens = comedy gold. I did have a couple of questions, such as, if they did not remember last night, then how did they remember where Mike Tyson lived? Also, why take the raw meat in to the bathroom and then shut yourself in? Why not just throw it in there and get out? On the whole, though, the movie is pretty decent. Once the funny starts, it stays funny the whole time. The process of discovering what happened last night was actually well done too. One thing carries you into the next, maybe pausing for a few moments to get some comedy in there. This easily could have gone on for way too long, but I feel like the length of the film is quite perfect, and it ends the search for Doug in the right spot. Zach Galifinakis pretty much stole the movie, from the way he stands with his hand on his hip, to his matter of fact delivery of his quirky dialogue ("Is there a payphone bank? Buncha payphones? Business.").

This really is a decent comedy, and the style of comedy runs the full spectrum, from physical (naked guy jumping on people), to foul language (females saying "suck my dick" always makes me laugh), even muscial, as the Dan Band plays the wedding at the end, and I am convinced that they should be in every wedding scene in every movie that has one. I think that some people may think this movie is much funnier than it actually is, but you can certainly do very much worse. I definitely recommend it.

Random Movie: Paranormal Activity (2007)

2010-01-03T00:55:00.004-05:00

Hollywood is a funny animal. Film studios are willing to drop millions of dollars on movies with horrible movies starring big actors, big gambles that may or may not pay off, and run of the mill sequels that have little redeeming cinematic value but are a sure win at the box office. Yet a movie like Paranormal Activity comes along and flounders for years on the festival circuit (hence the 2007 production year) before finally being picked up and begrudgingly released to theaters throughout the country.

If you follow movies at all, you know the gist of the story. Our couple, Micah and Katie, have been noticing some strange activity in their home. Tech geek Micah decides to get a camera to not only annoy the hell out of Katie in the bathroom but to capture any evidence of the strange occurrences. As the entire film takes place inside the house, mostly with just Micah and Katie, we are confined with them as the incidents occur more frequently and more violently leading to many scenes and images that will undoubtedly be etched into my vapid mind for some time to come.

Now, this film is very polarizing. Even before its wide release, for as many supporters of the film there were as many detractors. As any movie can be viewed in a million different ways by a million different people, my opinion should not shape yours. Movies are special in that each person comes away with their own take with no single opinion exactly the same. But ... this was quite possibly one of the most disturbing movies I have ever seen.
Admittedly, the general concepts of Paranormal are not groundbreaking by any means. On one hand you have a film of "found footage" and the other is a standard haunted house (or person) flick. In fact, this movie could have been made by anyone with a house, a couple of friends with a few days to kill, a decent camera, and a vague sense of special effects. But director (and video game designer) Oren Peli is not a random guy with some free time. One of the best reviews of the film pointed out that the sequences of events seem to ratchet up just like a video game, leading to a boss-fight at the end of the level. It might sound cliched, but for me this film was like a pressure cooker, starting with a slow simmer and ending with a gigantic, punch-in-the-chest finale.

To me, this film almost felt like a remake of The Blair Witch Project, substituting the vast abyss of a wooded forest to the confines of a suburban house. As someone who thoroughly enjoyed Blair Witch (and I'm not ashamed to admit it!), I was intrigued by Paranormal prior to its release and was pleasantly surprised that it exceeded not only the lofty expectations set by other horror and movie fans but my own as well. So, if you watch it and hate it, I won't be surprised based on previous reactions of these types of movies. But, if you watch it and find it (as I did) to be one of the scariest fucking movies you've ever seen, I will be happy. Good filmmaking deserves it and so do horror fans.

Random Movie: District 9 (2009)

2009-12-31T13:38:00.005-05:00

For some reason, this was a hard movie to watch. Not hard to watch as in terribly graphic or poorly made, but I watched the film over six days, each time falling asleep no matter if it was in the middle of the afternoon or 3 in the morning. This is not however an overall indication of the quality of the film, more an example of how I really like sleeping I suppose.

Released to theaters this past summer to critical praise, District 9 follows the existing and new denizens of Johannesburg, South Africa after an inoperable alien craft comes to rest over the city. Having no way to return home, over a million alien creatures, dubbed prawns by the locals, are rounded up in a fenced in series of shacks and tents. Twenty years later, crime has risen in the slum, the prawns are acting out against the humans, and the locals are demanding the alien residents be moved to another location. Enter Wikus Van De Merwe, middle management worker bee for MNU, a global weapons company that has been contracted to evict the aliens to a tent city over a hundred miles outside of the city.

That's the base line for the story and I feel giving more information would spoil the various twists and turns that the film takes over its runtime. Either I was not interested at the time of its release or the reviews and information I read did not delve into too many specifics, but as I sat down to watch the film, I had no idea what to expect other than the brief plot description that I gave you. And it really works better that way as the various shifts in narrative and the out-of-nowhere (but yet still realistic) plot developments shape District 9 into a movie full of twists and surprises.

As George Romero made popular in his zombie series (before the abysmal Diary of the Dead at least), District 9 features an underlying social commentary about the oppression and disdain the prawns endure while on Earth. While initially welcomed by the humans, the care-taking of the prawns became cumbersome with the rampant crime in District 9, the exploitation by Nigerians looking for weapons, and a lack of control for the different species. The obvious answer then is to send them away like unruly children where they won't bother the rest of the populace.

One the the standout aspects of the film was the budget at an estimated $30 million. While this is a ridiculous amount of money for you or I, with the average budget for a summer action movie of around $200 million, it is astonishing that a film of this caliber was made with so little. Almost all of the funds appear onscreen with the CGI prawns, looking more realistic than 90% of other CGI characters (I'm looking at you Jar-Jar Binks) and the subtle effects like the ship just hovering over Johannesburg in the background of numerous scenes without attention being drawn to it. Also of note was the performance of Sharlto Copley in our hero role. While some have decried his performance as enacting one emotion, nervousness, he was spot on for his character to be thrust into such an unexpected situation.

As the film was winding down, one of my biggest fears was the film would fall into the trap of the characters having a change of heart and helping out their fellow species for the ending to work. Fortunately, this did not happen. Almost all of the characters, from Wikus to the alien protagonist Christopher, are working for their own purposes. While sometimes there was overlap between the goals, Wikus and Christopher ultimately had different objectives and it was rather refreshing to see that play out throughout the film consistently instead of a cliched moment of realization at the end.

All together, District 9 had many things going for it from a strong short story as a basis, the great Peter Jackson producing, and an excess of creativity instead of money to throw at the end result. As such, District 9 was a fine movie (and an very expensive one-day rental at that) and is now appropriately placed in the Top 250 of IMDb.

Movie Scum Episode #3 is on YouTube!

2009-12-30T01:47:00.002-05:00

You like it! You love it!

Random Movie: Inglourious Basterds (2009)

2009-12-27T00:08:00.008-05:00

I will just come right out and say that Inglourious Basterds is a great film. You may want to watch it twice at least, to appreciate all of it. I had to do that with Jackie Brown as well, another Quentin Tarantino film. I found this movie MUCH more enjoyable than Death Proof, which made me want to eat a grenade during some of the slower parts. I get it Quentin, you love movies. And yes, it was an expert replica of the Grindhouse genre. So much so that I did not care for it.

I will preface the synopsis of Basterds by telling you that this is not a complete factual account of events during World War II. The basic plot is simple: folks want to kill Hitler. There is a group called the Basterds. This is a group led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). Raine has charged his men with the task of collecting 100 Nazi scalps a piece (there are 9 of them total, counting Raine). In this group is "The Bear Jew," (Eli Roth) who is particularly brutal. In addition to the Basterds, there is also Shosanna Dreyfus, whose family was killed by Nazis while hiding. She is the only survivor. In typical Tarantino fashion, these plans cross paths, but the parties involved know nothing of each other.

The standout in this film is Christoph Waltz, as Col. Hans Landa, or "The Jew Hunter." It certainly was the most well written character, and Waltz is simply outstanding. Right from the opening scene, he blew me away. Landa is very good at what he does, and knows it and Waltz does a fantastic job playing the sort of Columbo approach Landa employs; already knowing what is going on, but kind of pretending like he doesn't, and sometimes, getting his prey to participate in the revelation of what he knows. Brad Pitt was excellent as well, although he is not in the film as much as the trailers would lead you to believe. Pitt always does this kind of goofy smirk thing in all his roles (maybe not in that episode of Growing Pains) and it kind of affects his speech, but it actually works quite well here. Some odd casting choices: B.J. Novak (The Office), Eli Roth (Hostel) and Mike Myers (Austin Powers). I find the first 2 odd because they are not really actors; Novak is a writer/producer and Roth is a Director. Neither one of them can act. Mike Myers just seems odd in his scene, perhaps as my friend Phil put it best, because he is not really over the top, but he is definitely being SNL-ish. I found some other things slightly odd, as well. There are a few languages spoken in this film, it being about Nazi Occupied France. When French was spoken, in the subtitles, the words Oui and Merci were sometimes translated in to English, but other times left in French. I do not get that at all. In fact, it bothered my OCD quite a bit. Also, there were a couple of moments in the film that were narrated by Samuel L. Jackson. They seemed a bit oddly out of place as the film's overall style was a relatively normal one, as opposed to the usual Tarantino film. The narration seemed like it would be a better fit in one of his others.

There is the usual Tarantino fare with references to some of his favorite films and some of his own films. He makes 2 small and lineless (thank God) cameos. But overall, this was a different kind of film for him. No backwards storytelling, not the same bunch of actors (if you don't count the voices of Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel). I have a pretty decent record of seeing almost all of Tarantino's films in the theatre (only one I missed: Death Proof) and have yet to leave disappointed. I waited to buy the DVD and watch it a second time before revewing, because as I have found, some of his films need a second viewing. Even though the running time is over 2 and half hours, every single second is neccessary and goes by without dragging. A fine film indeed.

Happy Anniversary!

2009-12-26T22:56:00.000-05:00

Yes, just like that annoying significant other who always reminded you of the stupid milestones you always forgot, I am here to tell you that we have reached the tender age of one month old! We have passed the meconium stage and we almost can turn over, but otherwise we just lay around, look cute from time to time, and cry for attention. Perfect for a baby! Perfect for a blog!

Random Movie: WarGames (1983)

2009-12-25T00:37:00.007-05:00

Ah yes. The "accidental" wreaking of havoc is one of my favorite plot formulas. In WarGames, David (Matthew Broderick) accidentally almost starts WWIII. I say almost, because no missiles actually get launched. They come close to getting launched around, oh, 11 damn times, but never get out of the silos. Oh, was that a spoiler? Sorry. You see, young David tells his 1983 computer that takes up 1/3 of his bedroom to dial numbers at random to try and find a company that is putting out some pretty hot 1983 games. Checking the results, he suspects that he may have found the company, but he in fact found a backdoor to a government computer system. David's computer runs a simulation called Global Thermonuclear War, tricking the government computer in to thinking the Russians have initiated an attack on the U.S. Obviously hilarity ensues. Not because the movie is a comedy (it isn't), but because of the extremely nonsensical film that follows. There are major holes in the story. David tries to tell the FBI that while he did break in to their system, after he saw about it on the news, he threw the phone number away. Someone tells him that they know, because they found the number in the trash. Apparently their investigation stopped there, because David tells them that the computer called him back, but no one seems to care or is able to verify that. Had they investigated that however, we may not have had the resulting high quality film to entertain us. This is a pretty run of the mill 80's movie. Marginal acting and direction and it definitely has the Weekend at Bernie's Effect going on. It was nominated for 3 Oscars, which I find hilarious. It was nominated for Best Writing, Best Cinematography and Best Sound. Really? Best Sound? You want to know the name of another movie that year nominated for Best Sound? Return of the Jedi. Anyway, I actually do watch this movie fairly often, and it is one of those movies that is hilarious as time goes on, as most of it is an anachronism now, but it is still one of my "comfort movies."

Movie Scum Episode #2 is on YouTube!

2009-12-22T23:45:00.004-05:00

Another hastily thrown together video from Movie Scum!

Make this Reality: Unlimited Theater Pass

2009-12-21T01:08:00.003-05:00

I can't fathom how no one has yet to establish this in America. The US is one of the largest producers of films in the world as well as one of the largest populace of consumers of said movies. If the UK can do it, why the hell can't we?

I'm talking about unlimited movie passes. No, Netflix (as awesome as they are) doesn't count. I want a theater chain to come up with a totally unlimited movie pass letting me see as many movies as I can and see fit within one calender year. While discussing the future of this blog with my collaborator PBF, one of the points of contention was the fact that neither of us can see as many theatrical movies as we would like. The unlimited movie pass would fix all of that.

Now, I don't expect it to be cheap but I do expect it to be cost-prohibitive for the casual movie-goers while giving us cinemanerds a good deal. Maybe $150-$250 for a 12 month span would be a good starting point provided there are not ridiculous restrictions like seating areas or valid times of day. While $300 may seem a bit steep, I figure that on average there are at least two movies per month that I want to see. If each movie is at the average cost of $8 per ticket, this is a cost of close to $200 per year at the pay-per-view rate. Therefore I can by my $200 unlimited pass, see the two movies per month I want to anyways and probably catch many more films, all the while adding to the theater's bottom line with their deliciously, artery-hardening popcorn.

Not only will this increase theater concession sales, bring more people to see those stupid ads in front of the movies, and create more of an audience to spread the word to friends, I will get to see as many movies as I want. From where I sit, its a no-brainer. Let's work on this Hollywood!

Random Movie: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

2009-12-21T00:54:00.002-05:00

In an effort to show that we at Movie Scum do not hate movies older than 30-ish, I sat down and watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for the very first time. In my life, I have heard random mentions of the film and even seen it reside within the top 250 of the IMDb, but never really given much thought into watching it. Knowing very little about it other than what the title gives away, I sat down in front of my computer to watch this little ditty.

Watching this movie reminded me of my senior year government class. After taking this class and listening to lectures of the innerworkings of our government taught by a state delegate, I was politically invigorated. At the time, politics held such promise as a panacea for all that was wrong in the world. The year was 2000 and I voted in that year's Presidential election and every other lesser election since then. It was only recently, a scant nine years after, that I became bitter about the American political system and all the shenanigans and tomfoolery that went on. Even though being made a good 43 years before I was even born, Mr. Smith's journey through the political system embodies my feelings toward the institution as a whole. But then again, this blog is not about politics.

For those who haven't had the pleasure to enjoy the film, the titular character is enlisted to take the place of a departed United States senator. While he arrives bright-eyed and bushy-tailed (where does that saying even come from?), Mr. Smith (played wonderfully by James Stewart) soon discovers that Washington is more about caressing the press and mincing words than standing up for freedom and values. After almost being discharged from his position due to uncovering a potential scandal, Mr. Smith takes up and performs a spectacle on the floor of the Senate until the film concludes with the right person admitting guilt and the hero redeemed.

The first thing that jumped out with this movie is how applicable it is today. An inexperienced man is thrust into a position of high power who stumbles without the help of more senior colleagues and aids and candidly states that he will not "disgrace the office." Instead, from the onset, he seems to do just that with doctored articles from the corrupt press corp to blatantly false allegations from a fellow senator. In many ways, we can all relate to Smith as he begins a new position not knowing what to do, where to go, or whom to ask either of the previous questions. The awkwardness of his new job wears off however as he uncovers the real reason he was appointed to the position and his idealistic dream of helping his neighbors, his state, and his country are crushed at the will of 99 other men.

Mr. Smith is a great movie for many reasons, most of which involve the cast. Stewart is top-notch especially at his last ditch filibuster moment toward the close of the film. When the bundles of telegraphs are brought in to quiet the loquacious Senator, you feel desperation for the character although it never shows through Stewart's performance. Also, frequent mention on MST3k Claude Rains excels at his portrayal of Paine, sort of a dark Jedi master whose powers could easily swap from good to evil.

Not being as well versed in black-and-white films, I was struck by how often shadows were used in the film, not only for shot design but also to highlight important pieces of information like newspaper headlines or relevant statements from the Gettysburg Address. While it was effective as a story-telling technique, it was rather jarring to see a glowing piece of text standing out at you in an otherwise tense dramatic scene. Also jarring were some of the filmmaking techniques like the "Vasoline on the lens" look when Saunders starts falling in love with Smith, the jarring cuts to the same shot in the same scene (as it were a really badly produced student film), and the wipes for transitions between scenes. Again, these may have been mainstay at the time, but over 60 years removed they are rather bothersome.

All in all though, the performances and the story of this movie are in excellent form. At the time it seemed to ruffle a lot of feathers with its portrayal of Washington politics so I am surprised that it hasn't reached a new success with all of the jilted political goers such as myself. Even if that doesn't happen, it is good to know that this is a film truly worthy of all the acclaim.

Rollin' With the Homies

2009-12-20T15:33:00.006-05:00

For those of you who don't know, Brittany Murphy is dead. It has been determined that Cardiac Arrest is the cause and she was apparently found in the shower. This a newly developing story, so more info is to come. Brittany was in movies such as 8 Mile, Clueless, and Girl, Interrupted. She was 32 years old.

The End of the World , written by Arthur Kent and Sylvia Dee, performed by Skeeter Davis

(song playing when Daisy in Girl, Interrupted, portrayed by Brittany Murphy, was found dead, having commited suicide.)

Why does the sun go on shining?
Why does the sea rush to shore?
Don't know it's the end of the world
'cos you don't love me anymore?

Why do the birds go on singing?
Why do the stars glow above?
Don't they know it's the end of the world
It ended when I lost your love

I wake up in the morning and I wonder
Why everything's the same as it was.
I can't understand, no I can't understand how life goes on the way it does.

Why does my heart go on beating?
Why do these eyes of mine cry?
Don't they know it's the end of the world,
It ended when you said goodbye.

(spoken): Why does my heart go on beating?
Why do these eyes of mine cry?
Don't they know it's the end of the world
(sung): It ended when you said goodbye.

I wake up in the morning and I wonder
Why everything's the same as it was
I can't understand, no I can't understand how life goes on the way it does.

Why does my heart go on beating?
Why do these eyes of mine cry?
Don't they know it's the end of the world
It ended when you said goodbye

Oh don't, don't they know it's the end of the world
It ended when you said goodbye.

Who's the Protagonist?

2009-12-20T13:31:00.003-05:00

While watching the excellent documentary "His Name Was Jason," one of the commentators remarked how Jason was "the protagonist in his films." This struck me as interesting but not incorrect depending on how you look at the Friday the 13th series.

The simplistic, watered-down definition of protagonist as I understood for many years was "the good guy." While this is the most commonly used definition, other means exist as illustrated by the literary definition. The term can mean anything from the first actor onstage in theatrical productions, the "hero" of the story, or even a mere participant in the story. Arguably though, the best definition is the central character, the one whom the audience conveys the most sympathy towards.

Now, the Friday series is not known for its depth in characterization. In fact, there is very little overlap between any of the films in the series with the characters. With some exceptions (mostly reduced to cameo roles), the bulk of the characters in the films are not only disposable but also interchangeable. The only real standout is Tommy Javis who appeared in parts 4, 5, & 6 whose character appears to be crafted by Shakespeare compared to the rest of the cookie-cutter gang. Sure, some of the final girls had their unique attributes, but ultimately no one went to see a Friday the 13th movie for the human fodder. The movies belonged to Jason.

Jason is the one constant in the series (with the exception of Part 5) and has been the one character with the most celluloid devoted to his past. As Jason is scorned from his untimely death as a child, he seeks out the similar miscreants who caused his demise and eliminate them. In this fashion, Jason is in fact the hero as he tries to cleanse the Crystal Lake area of the irresponsible, drug-smoking, fornicating teens littering the countryside, similar in fact to John Doe from Se7en. Jason is of course rather oblivious to the religious implications of his slaughtering activities, focusing merely on dicing anyone who crosses his path, perhaps with the goal of creating a better, safer lake-front property for himself and all the future little Voorhees children.

Random Movie: Howard the Fuck (1986)

2009-12-18T19:34:00.005-05:00

Oops. The F is right next to the D. So, I figured that since my last post was about a movie that is damn near perfection, I figured (partly inspired by it being on right now) that I would give you my offering for worst movie ever. Howard the Duck. This piece of garbage came out in 1986 and I have a small scar in both eyes ever since, from where I tried to scratch them out. Admittedly, I have seen it more than once. Not really sure why. I probably at one point wanted to bang Lea Thompson and her crimped hair (and Holly Robinson for that matter), or I had some bizarre compulsion to see duck titties again. Whatever the reason, I am ashamed. If you want to see why a terrible movie is terrible (and believe me, you don't), look no further. Piss poor acting, terrible directing and editing, absolutely insane and unfathomable plot; this has it all. I will give you the Reader's Digest version. Howard T. Duck (yeah, that's right) is pulled from his duck planet (which is just like ours apparently, except, everyone is an English speaking duck) by a laser. He lands in Cleveland, and is taken in by Lea Thompson. You can obviously figure the main story out: Howard tries to find a way back home. "But, PBF," you are undoubtedly saying. "This film you are describing. It sounds like it can only be creafted from the finest filmakers. It couldn't possibly be that bad." I assure you it is. And as if it weren't bad enough with what I have already mentioned, let me share with you some of the witty lines: To Howard (obviously), "Listen, bird brain." After settng the kitchen on fire, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." And possibly my favorite bit of dialogue; Policeman: "I wanna see your license, Jack!" Dr, Jennings (possessed by Dark Overlord)," I have no license. I am not Jack." Oddly enough all of those lines are spoken by Jeffrey Jones, who plays Dr. Jennings, the one who accidentally brings Howard to earth and later turns into a Dark Overlord. Tim Robbins is also in it, although I am sure he would prefer me not to mention that, something that his life mate Susan Sarandon can relate to, having been in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, another epic failure. I have often asked myself why Mystery Science Theater 3000 has never done this one. I fear that the answer is that not even they could make this bearable.

Random Movie: Memento (2000)

2009-12-17T23:33:00.007-05:00

Like many people, I have a few "Top 5" or whatever denomination lists. Movies, music, tv shows, etc. Most of them, especially the music one, changes very often, sometimes by day. My movie list, everchanging as well, has always, since 2000, had Memento on it, usually at #1. I had read about this film before it came out and was quite intrigued at the concept. Bascially, it is about a man, Leonard (Guy Pearce) who cannot form new memories, and is trying to solve his wife's murder. The movie tells his story backwards, where each new scene you watch ends where the previous one began. He must keep notes and pictures and in some cases tatoos, to remind him of certain things and people. He usually forgets what is going on after about 5-15 minutes. He has normal memory up until the point of his wife's murder, an altercation in which he was injured, thus leaving him in his condition.

I had never seen a movie like this before I entered the theatre that day. I was lucky enough to see it while it ran for a short time in a theatre that no longer exists. I walked out speechless. For a number of reasons. One of them being, that I foolishly hyped this movie up based on what I had read, thinking it was going to be the greatest movie ever. Not really smart; usually a film will not live up to that. This one actually EXCEEDED it. I could not believe how well crafted it was. Christopher Nolan (Insomnia, The Dark Knight [if you had to click the Dark Knight link to find out what it is, punch yourself, you cave dweller]), the director, is a genius. Watch an internview with him if you can, about his movie making porcess. He is fantastic. This movie, is really told in 2 chronologies. Backwards and forwards, and ultimately stopping in the middle of them. The present is black and white and the backward is color, and the film goes back and forth between them. What this does, is give you the same kind of affliction Leonard does, only you still know what happened. This causes a few laughs as well as gasps, as you have already seen what is coming, but did not expect what happened immediately beforehand, which technically happened after because of the chronology of the scenes. This is a flim noir syle film and it just really really is possibly the best movie ever. There have been many a film that has tried to emulate it's style, but to no avail. I do not claim to have this movie completely figured out by any means as far as who did what, and who is good, and who is bad in relation to Leonard, bit the film does not completely go over your head, which it easily could have done. Leonard "narrating" the film during the black and white scenes kind of helps keep you focused and in snyc with what is going on. Carrie Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano also are in this film and are quite good. The DVD comes with an interactive menu with excepts of Johnathan Nolan's short story Memento Mori, and offers some further backstory, and is rather an interesting twist on the events that occur in the film.

To be honest with you, it is my hope that you will watch this film and for that reason, I do not want to delve to deeply into the events of it, because it really is a whole different experience watching it and I would like you to enjoy it fully.

Movie Scum is on You Tube!

2009-12-16T00:38:00.004-05:00

We have made our first video! Note the cheap production! The akward pauses! This is the Movie Scum Holiday Special. We will bring you more videos so be sure to subscribe to scumomovies on You Tube and rate us and whatever else you are supposed to do to show that you like our videos.

Missing in Action: Lisa Wilcox

2009-12-13T22:48:00.004-05:00

One of the better parts of the much maligned Nightmare on Elm Street 4 and just about the only redeeming quality in the absolutely horrid Nightmare 5 was the beautiful Alice Johnson, played by Lisa Wilcox. Alice was actually one of the better written characters in the Nightmare franchise and while some of the dialogue was clumsy at time, Wilcox performed better than expected in the third and fourth sequels in a series that was unfortunately going downhill fast.

After Nightmare 5 came out in 1989, Wilcox seems to have been largely off the grid. According to her IMDb resume, she has appeared in a handful of small films and some guest appearances on various television series. While this certainly may be an intentional choice by the actress, it is rather disheartening to see someone go from headlining two relatively popular movies to fading into the oblivion of scraping by with acting gigs here and there. Recently, she has appeared with fellow Nightmare star Robert Englund and other genre vets Kane Hodder and Danielle Harris on a Fearnet webseries Fear Clinic. Back before the remake train began for the Nightmare series, I was holding out hope that the series would be resurrected with Alice and Jacob, 15 years later battling Freddy again. Sadly, we got Freddy vs. Jason instead. If it is her desire, hopefully this series will give Lisa more exposure to get back into the swing of Hollywood and hopefully not just within the square of DTV horror films. Although, if that's what happens, I wouldn't mind seeing a familiar face in Wrong Turn 16 in a few years.

Woopity Doo!

2009-12-13T12:40:00.006-05:00

Is Adam Sandler funny? Short answer is yes. I don't think there is anyone among us that did not like, and can't quote incessantly, Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. Unless you are a communist, of course. But, honestly, why do I keep watching his movies? With a few exceptions, I can sum up the plot of any of his films as follows: Generally good hearted buffoon placed in an odd situation that he tries to get a handle on, while trying to woo a woman. Even the better of his films follow that basic recipe. It's like Mexican food. You can order 11 different items, but they all have the same stuff in them. Yet I continue to consume. I can't even really apply the Weekend at Bernie's Effect here, because while he does have some watchable films (Wedding Singer, Punch Drunk Love, Funny People), I cannot watch some of his others (Little Nicky, The Waterboy, Spanglish). When he was on Saturday Night Live, he was hilarious. The Denise Show, Canteen Boy, The Gap Girls. Basically what I think he is doing for the most part, is having fun making movies with his friends, and there will always be a demographic that appreciates loud voices, mildly suggestive language, and the word meatball (if you watch a few of his movies, you will hear that word, or a reference to meatballs somewhere. Meatball was the name of a dog he had that died). I on the other hand, would probably want to have a more memorable dent in the film industry with a resume a long as his.

Meatball.

Random Movie: Wonderland (2003)

2009-12-11T16:41:00.007-05:00

Many people know who John Holmes was. Even if they have not seen his "work." If you do not, he was arguably the most famous porn star ever, largely (no pun intedned) due to being so well endowed. Not very many people know that along with being a drug addict, he also played some part in the Wonderland murders that took place in 1981; the brutal blugeoning of 5 people, one of which survived. I say "some part" as it has never been determined what part, but his fingerprints were found at the scene on Wonderland Ave, the namesake of the crimes and movie. What I will not do in this review is give my commentary of what I think happened, make any remark to any factual discrepensies (I obviously was not involved, therefore would not have the authority to do so) or offer any moral opinion of any of the people involved in the actual events that took place. I will simply give a review of the film.

Wonderland really serves one major purpose, aside from being entertainment: To give you 2 sides of one story, the Wonderland murders, as told by John Holmes (Val Kilmer) and David Lind (Dylan McDermott). David Lind was a regular at the Wonderland house, but was not present at the time of the murders. He and Susan Launius (who was there) were the only survivors. Each one tells their side, clearly placing the blame on the other, but a brief summary of the events would be as follows: The Wonderland "gang" sans John Holmes (who really only went there for drugs) breaks in to the residence of Eddie Nash, owner of the Starwood, and steals quite a haul, including drugs and cash, and injuring a bodyguard of Nash's. Somehow Nash finds out it was John Holmes who let them in (Lind and Holmes both offer their versions of this) and beats Holmes, force him to take the bodygard and some others over to Wonderland and let them in, and thus the murders take place. The film focuses on this and does not delve in to the porn career of Holmes, which at this point was pretty much over.

The only performance I had issue with in this film was Dylan McDermott's, but really only during one scene where he is talking to the cops. I cannot tell if it is poor acting, or his character being a bad liar, but in any event, it is not consistent with his acting during the rest of the film, which is decent. As is everyone's. Val Kilmer, who I am convinced should play every famous dead person there is, is quite fantastic. The desparation of an addict is something he portrays quite well. Holmes was reportedly quite a liar, and may have even believed his own lies, and this is also something that Kilmer portrays well. Kate Bosworth plays Dawn Schiller, Holmes's teenage girlfriend he took while still being married to his wife (played by Lisa Kudrow). Through Bosworth you see the desparation that also comes with wanting to free yourself from an abuser but also yourself being an addict, and your abuser having the means to supply you with drugs while filling your head with dreams of the better life promises to come. I find that this is a well directed film for the most part. I think the choice of having Lind and Holmes tell their sides was a better one than, say, the director (James Cox) simply telling you what he thinks happened. There are a handful of things that take away from the "film" aspect of it, such as certain buldings and cars that were in the film that were not in existence yet in 1981. One of the biggest blunders is the voice over that states that the Wonderland murders are the worst to happen in L.A. since the 1968 Sharon Tate murders. Those murders took place in 1969. Also, there are a few obvious editing errors, but obviously Wonderland is not the first nor the last film to have any of these things go on. I have yet to see a film that was edited completely without error. I first saw this movie on DVD. I bought it from a store without having seen it, only reading about it. It never played in the town I live in, and I was looking forward to seeing it. So when I saw it on the shelf I picked it up and bought it. It is packaged with a documentary of Holmes, which goes more in to his life and death and has interviews with Saron Holmes (his wife), Dawn Schiller, Misty Dawn (his second wife, who ws married to him until his death in 1988), directors of his films, and many others. This adds an eerie feel to the Wonderland experience. Even though the movie is based on actual events, you are still watching a film with actors. But then you pop the documentary in and hear the real people talk about the events, even saying things that were lines in the movie. Kind of adds a different dimension to it when you re watch the movie. Makes it feel like you are watching everything actually happen. A decent film that is worth a watch, by all means. I find this kind of thing (perhaps morbidly) fascinating, and this story, even beyond the film, is definitely interesting to say the least.

A side note to this, a book will be relaeased, called The Road Through Wonderland, in 2010. It offers yet another perspective on this story, as it is written by Dawn Schiller. I invite you to click her name and read her website. She does quite a bit of work with teens, shelters, etc., which is documented there, as well as discussions of being sober and being a mother to her daughter. If you are on Facebook, you will find her as Author Dawn Schiller and can join the Facebook group The Road Through Wonderland. You will find more information on the other wonderful work she is doing. Dawn was also kind enough to become a fan of Movie Scum on Facebook (which you should also do, if you have not already). However this was not my motivation to review this film in particular; rather share a great film with you.

News Roundup: Week of 12/11/09

2009-12-11T16:29:00.002-05:00

Paramount to produce more micro-budget films
In the wake of Paranormal Activity, Paramount seems to be on-board with more tiny-budget films. Let's hope they do not end up in the DTV-bargain bin dreck.

The Weinstein Company Has Begun Re-Thinking 'Halloween 3D'
The last thing this battered franchise needs is a rushed sequel showcasing lackluster 3D effects. Just keep Patrick Lussier and Todd Farmer on the project and it should turn out fine.

Josh Brolin in 'Men in Black 3'?!!?!?!Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones reunited again? Maybe we'll get Woody Harrelson from his 'Zombieland' stint and Javier Bardem can play the evil alien with a pressure-based-doorknob-busting thing.

Additional Scenes Being Shot for 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'
I'm still going to hold out hope that this will be a great remake. All signs seem to point otherwise though.

Random Movie: Hannibal (2001)

2009-12-11T12:13:00.004-05:00

My love affair with the movie Hannibal is long and twisted. At the time before its release, I loved its predecessor Silence of the Lambs for many reasons but primarily due to its legendary villain, Hannibal Lector. During the pre-production phase of Hannibal, it seemed to be dealt several marks against it from Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster dropping out as well as a general disdain for the ending of the book. I was still excited at the prospect though and even went so far as to go to an open casting call for extras as it was filming in my hometown.

And then, on opening weekend in 2001, I saw the film with a friend of mine ... and I freaking hated it. I can't remember exactly why I did not care for it. At the time, and even more so now, I liked Julianne Moore but she just seemed rather out of place as Clarice. Perhaps it was also due to a drastic shift in tone or pace from the first (technically second) Hannibal adventure. But bottom line, I was ready to write the film off and go on my merry way, nary looking back at the failed opportunity that was Hannibal. But then I bought the DVD when it was released later that year. Being at a point where I really enjoyed bonus features on DVDs and had a plethora of disposable income, I bought it knowing that I didn't care for the movie at all. Then, after watching the movie again, I decided I rather liked it.

I went into seeing the movie with the wrong expectation: it would be Silence Part II, following the same basic formula and set up as Silence and Michael Mann's Manhunter. Instead of a rehash of the "Hannibal helps the cops catch another serial killer with his insights and intellect," we get a movie about Clarice's life in the FBI and her fall from grace and Hannibal's ideal retreat in the world. Interlocking the two stories is the history the two characters have shared and the understanding of each other that has come about.

Perhaps the turning point was Ridley Scott's commentary which described the movie as an unrequited love story. It sounded really odd and arrogant this first time I heard it, but upon reflection, that is a rather fair assessment of the film. Hannibal loves Clarice, Clarice may reciprocate but she feels a sense of duty to an unjust bureaucracy that wants Hannibal more. Sure, there are other plots to fill up the two hour film such as with Mason Verger and Inspector Pazzi, but the story ultimately boils down to them. From his gift of shoes, to saving her life, to cooking her boss, and even cutting off his own hand, Hannibal tries to be a stand-up man and show his feelings to Clarice, knowing she will never feel the same as she is committed to her sense of justice and right and wrong.

Allegedly, this is where the book deviates from the characters at the end but having read none of Thomas Harris' novels, I can neither confirm nor deny. However, I can confirm Hannibal is one of my favorite movies with the beautiful scenes in Florence, the grotesque Mason Verger (played with greatness by Gary Oldman), and even the operatic-based score by Hans Zimmer. Sadly, the character of Hannibal did not recover well in Red Dragon (which is to be expected I suppose for anyone who previous saw Manhunter). While it did not receive the acclaim of the previous film, Hannibal is a solid character piece, with a little cannibalism thrown in for fun.

MST3K Resurrection

2009-12-10T10:52:00.002-05:00

Well, sort of.

Those of you who are fans of horrible acting, convoluted plots, continuity errors, and major flaws in logic can take solace in knowing the great Mystery Science Theater 3000 has returned. Hulu recently picked up the show and currently have five full episodes available ranging from the terrible Giant Gila Monster to the equally bad Monster-A-Go-Go. While the episodes are not "new," they may be new to you. No sign of Mitchell or Manos yet, but hopefully they'll turn up in time.

Now go watch!

Random Movie: The Gate (1987)

2009-12-10T01:24:00.009-05:00

Oh, my. The Gate. Why did I like you?

For the uninitiated, this is Stephen Dorf's first film. Honestly, it is not really that good, but as far as bad movies go, it is pretty good. Here is the basic plot. Parents leave teenage daugther and pre-teen son for 3 days because they "trust" them. Son and friend accidentally open a gate to hell in the backyard. Way to piss all over your parents' trust, kid. Basically what happens is, a tree with a treehouse in it is knocked over which causes a hole. While messing around back there, Glen (Stephen Dorf), the aforementioned son, and his friend Terry find a geode in it and get all excited because it will surely get them "100 bucks!" This, coupled with an accidental reciting of some magic words, and a dead dog being put in the hole, blast open a gate to hell. Terry, who is a metalhead, will discover the whole story while listening to an album by a band called Sacrifyx. The album is called The Dark Book and comes with said book. In it, it explains how the Old Gods (demons) once ruled the darkness and now they don't and are angry, and once the stars are aligned properly, they can be summoned, by doing exaclty what Glen and Terry did. Of couse, the stars are aligned properly as well.

I recall liking this movie many years ago, but upon re-watchnig it, I am not sure why. The acting is really bad, the special effects are garbage, the story line and ridiculous ending sucks. Very poor editing and directon. And man is it slow. I mean you don't even really care for the characters. You can kind of see the struggle that Al and her brother Glen go through as Al is pulled between her friends and Glen for attention, but they are such poor actors, it's like, who cares? And we hear that Terry's mother died, and that is why he is "odd," but aside from a hallucination where he sees his mother, there is no other mention of it. And he doesn't really act that odd, so again, who cares? You know what might make it better?

A remake.

Remakes usually piss me off. I really have not seen one that I like. I hated the Friday the 13th remake, the Amytiville Horror remake blew. I found the Halloween remake passable, despite it's problems. Alex Winter will be directing this one. What I think will happen, is that this will probably not be a remake as such, but more so a borrowing of the idea, told completely differently. I mean, honestly, if you saw this movie, you would not want someone to remake it using the exact same things going on, like a model rocket saving the earth. Or a demon infested house in the middle of a neighborhoodthat somehow no one manages to notice. I wouldn't mind it being period and set in the late 80's and seeng some of those clothes and hairstyles again. That was hilarious.

This movie really didn't break any new ground, and it certainly was not really even violent. There was no sex and very little swearing (the film is PG-13) so it is not your typical "horror" movie, but it isn't better, either. Just your run of the mill flick, that I and probably only 8 other people have seen.

Virgin Diaries: The Breakfast Club

2009-12-09T17:51:00.003-05:00

Born in 1982, I was technically alive in a great era of many genres ranging from the cheap slasher movie explosion of the 80s to all the teen movies made by or inspired by John Hughes and his movie-making machine. Much to the chagrin of PBF though, there are several staples of the decade that I haven't yet seen. This is one of the movies.

High school is an interesting time for anyone. For most, you are thrown together for eight hours a day with a diverse group of people that you would never otherwise associate with. Some of these people you end up bonding with, others you wish would die in a fire at your earliest convenience. You are all held together by a common set of arbitrary rules and controls dictated by people who literally seem to hate your very existence. The Breakfast Club almost perfectly embodies these typical frustrations of an adolescent during four years of their life.

At the start of the film you have the five food groups of a high school: jocks, freaks, nerds, monarchy, and troublemakers. Certainly one would expect shenanigans of sorts when representative members of these groups come together for nine hours in a confined space. One of the things that struck me about writer and director John Hughes' film is how understated it is. If this movie were made today, there would certainly be an explosive fight between the conflicting class, an explosion, probably a full-on sex scene, and an ending with a nice little bow on it as the five youths go to a house and play XBox together. Instead, we have the teens pick on each other, play mind games, smoke some pot, but mostly sit and talk and work through their individual and collective problems. This actually reminded me of 12 Angry Men in this aspect.

Helping the movie greatly are the five great actors, whom sadly seem to have dropped off the radar recently. Judd Nelson (admittedly looking a bit old to play a high school student) steals the show with his over-the-top, asshat approach to other people, school, and life in general. As much as I was expecting his character to have dropped his misanthropic views at the conclusion of the day, I am happy that his transformation was more natural and did not have his character shedding a tear at the end while embracing his new friends. Molly Ringwald certainly looked the part of that stuck up girl who vowed to go an entire school year without wearing the same outfit twice. Ally Sheedy played the neurotic girl perfectly that made you wonder if she was really crazy or just wanted to act that way to avoid anyone else's BS. Anthony Michael Hall, who only looked to be about 14 in this, embodied the scrawny type of kid who probably skipped a grade or two and has panic attacks at an A- on a test. Of course, Emilio Estevez looked like the kind of guy who would be sticking Anthony Michael Hall in a trashcan on a semi-regular basis.

Prior to actually watching the movie, the closest experience I ever got was from watching Not Another Teen Movie which featured several scenes parodying Breakfast Club and even featured Paul Gleason reprising his role as Dick Vernon. Principal Vernon at times almost seems to be Bender twenty years later, someone who still despises people, but is only more tolerable because he's the one in charge now and he makes $31,000 a year. I believe this is why the exchange between Vernon and Bender is so fluid as Vernon was on the other side at one point, accepting months worth of Saturday detention leading to Bender's brazen outburst of "FUCK YOU" after Vernon leaves the library.

As a whole, there were only a few parts of the movie I took issue with. The biggest problem I had was with the character of Andy. It seems like in all the movies of this ilk, the star jock never seems to be happy. Sure, he (or she although I can't think of any with a female tortured jock) has the popularity, the talent, and the bright future but the pressure from the parents and the coach are too much. Rarely do you see a teen movie with a cocky kid, drunk with celebrity from his peers, loving his life and enjoying spitting in other people's faces. The latter is the more accurate depiction of star athletes from my school but this is understandably not my life portrayed here. The other minor quibble, which is more of an aging problem, is some of the outdated dialogue including classics such as "Eat my Shorts" and "Sue Me." Not that this detracts from the story itself, but without these anachronisms and some of the clothing, the film could have taken place in the 80s, 90s, or today.

All in all, I am rather sad that I've waited so long to enjoy this nice tall glass of John Hughes brand teen angst. While I have seen some of Hughes' classics such as Ferris Bueller, National Lampoon's Vacation, and Planes, Trains, & Automobiles, I am behind the curve in his celebrated teenage category. This was a worthy excursion into his world and I just hope when I go to visit the rest of my oversights of his, such great characters wrapped in a tightly knit story will be waiting to take me on my first time.

Random Movie: Jesus' Son (1999)

2009-12-08T09:46:00.008-05:00

No one has ever heard of the movie Jesus' Son when I ask them about it. I myself, saw it by happenstance. I was flipping through the guide on the cable box and saw the synopsis for this film. It listed Frank Black (lead singer of the Pixies) as being in it. Having never seen Frank Black in a movie I turned it on. Turns out it was a misprint, and it was in fact Jack Black. However, what I found was quite an interesting film. Billy Crudup plays a character listed as FH, or Fuck Head. He narrates the story, which starts in the middle, backs up and then cathes up with itself around the real middle of the film. A large chunk of it deals with his heroin addiction (the title of the movie comes from a line in Lou Reed's song "Heroin") but the movie is really more than that.

We watch a journey through life, as FH deals with whatever he encounters, and how he moves from one thing to the next. The movie is actually quite nicely directed. At some points during the narration, it almost sort of feels a little messy; FH backs the story up for getting ahead of himself, and at one point after telling a 30 or 40 minute story, it ends with him telling us that he may have told us the wrong story. This is done I am sure to produce a mild feeling of confusion as the characters are strung out the whole time during this part of the film. Some excellent lines in the film as well: "...made me feel like the inside of my veins hads been scraped out." "I knew every rain drop by it's name." The film also stars Denis Leary, Dennis Hopper, Samantha Morton and Michael Shannon, all of which are great. It is a dark comedy that very much embodies both; Jack Black certainly delivers the comedy in a toned down version of his normal fashion, and the subject matter and character deaths certainly provide the darkness. I recommend viewing the film at least once just so that you have experienced it. It sits on my DVD shelf, and is played quite often.

What's the Draw of 3D?

2009-12-08T09:31:00.003-05:00

History certainly seems to repeat itself. Films in 3D have been around for a while but seem to have peaks and valleys in their popularity. With the last burst of 3D cinema occurring close to thirty years ago (perhaps it follows the remake timeline), more films recently have been released relying on the concept of adding that extra dimension to movies. With James Cameron's much publicized Avatar set to drop later this month, 3D films could be facing a huge resurgence depending on this film's success.

But my question stems from an article quoting James Gianopulos, the CEO of Fox who was overseeing the production of Avatar:

"As Jim says, we experience the world in 3D, why should we experience film any different?"

Having only seen one film in theaters with 3D segments (for the record, that was the terrible Freddy's Dead), I can't really speak for how well depth perception is really conveyed. My questions are, if films have been shot in regular 2D for decades consistently, with 3D appearing as a fad with its many resurgences and declines, is 3D really that effective? Is it here to stay? Did it make Jaws III a better movie at the theater than what I saw at home?

Make This Movie: Resident Evil 4

2009-12-07T23:53:00.001-05:00

While I fully realize that a fourth movie adaptation to the popular video game franchise is in the works, I would love to see a movie based on the events of the fourth video game.

In RE4 as the cool kids call it, Leon Kennedy is sent to a quaint European village to rescue the stupid daughter of the United States President. He encounters there cult members who have had their bodies taken over by a parasite of some kind and who will stop at nothing to kill Leon before he rescues the damsel in distress. Many hi-jinks ensue with Leon battling chainsaw-wielding maniacs, big baddies in lakes and castles, and some creepy guy trying to sell things in dark alleys. While it has been a while since I've last played the game, that's about the gist of the story. And it's fan-freakin-tastic.

Playing the game, I thought how cool would it be for a zombie movie (or any horror movie in general) to capture the atmosphere and mood of this game. At any time, around any corner could be some psycho with a machete or a flaming arrow aimed at your head. You find yourself low on ammo, having to rely on whatever you have at hand to fend off the attackers and escape without serious injury. You escape one village full of the infected to go straight to an abandoned bunker, or old mansion, or dock stocked with these "things."

If a writer were to merely write all the levels on postcards, mount them to a bulletin board, and throw darts aimlessly at it, I can almost guarantee a decent to great movie depending on the talent behind the scenes. So, while the film series of Resident Evil may be decent (admittedly I haven't seen any of them with little desire to), they certainly cannot match the palpable tension in RE4. I dare you Hollywood to make a film of this.

I double-dog dare you!

Make Them Die Slowly!

2009-12-06T00:27:00.005-05:00

I realize that we are all somewhat desensitized to violence and horror today. I mean, what would scare the bejesus out of someone 10-15 years ago in a movie has probably been shown on Sesame Street by now. There are a few films that, while they do not "scare" me, they are classic, gore trash, that I love. Here is a small list of them, so that you may find them for yourself and enjoy.

1. Tombs of the Blind Dead. This is Spanish (Portugal) with subtitles. There is a bit of a creepiness to it, but it is just good cheeseball horror. It is not as gory as some others on this list, but there is some people eating. Something kind of funny about blind templars wandering around until they bump into someone and then eat them.

2. Cannibal Ferox. Italian. Oh my. This is so fucking hilarious. Basically, there are the some college kids and a coked up professor. They stumble upon a tribe of cannibals. This movie is sick. I mean, member of tribe cuts penis off and eats it. Need I say more? Alright, I will. As you will read if you click that link, there were actual animal killings. WTF? I had this on laser disc (think CD that is bigger than a record, and you have to flip it over when one side is done), if you can believe that. Tagline is "Make them die slowly!"

3. Zombie 2. Lucio Fulci's classic. Italian. This is called Zombie 2 (actually Zombi 2 in Italy) because although written before Romero's Dawn of the Dead, it was released after. Dawn of the Dead was released as Zombi in Italy. Zombi 2 was given it's name to make more money as an unauthorized sequel. The 2 films have nothing to do with each other. This movie is a bit creepy at times. Zombie boat floating in the harbor in NYC. People poking their heads about to investigate? DEATH!

4. Maniac. This film is...nuts. Tom Savini does the make up (and of course must show up in the film) and does quite a good job, but I warn you: this one is disturbing. No zombies, just a sick, well, maniac. Basically this guys kills women, and takes their scalps. Puts 'em on manniquens. I'm not talking Kim Cattrall and Kristy Swanson mannequins, either. This one is actually a decent movie in my opinion and quite watchable from an aesthetic standpoint, but again, I warn you: DISTURBING.

5. B.A.P.S. Absolutely horrifying.

Where Are My DVDs?

2009-12-05T23:03:00.005-05:00

So, DVDs have been around for over ten years, yet there are still films that were released long ago on VHS that have yet to see the day on DVD. Now, I have lived this long without, but it irritates me that there are still pockets of unrecognized films without proper representation on the digital standard (no, I'm not counting Blu-Ray at this point).

While it was lauded as a groundbreaking "meta" film at the time, some of the luster has worn off Wes Craven's Scream. However, it is still a highly entertaining exercise in understanding Kevin Williamson's highly unrealistic teenage dialect wrapped in a pretty decent slasher film. While this film has been on DVD for some time, it is not anamorphic so it looks like crap on my TV in stretch-o-vision and it is even the version trimmed down to appease the dolts at the MPAA. If Paramount can release Event Horizon on DVD three times, surely Dimension can throw a few dollars toward a decent, uncut release of this "classic."

While it is probably the most maligned of the Halloween series, I've always had a special space in my heart for Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. One of the reasons it is frowned upon so is due to the chainsaw editing that was done after the film was completed. Many scenes were cut down or reshot all together resulting in a major clusterfuck of a movie. Still, this one had the best autumn atmosphere out of any of the sequels and there were many scenes of greatness trying to sneak through. Yet, all we have is a discontinued bare-bones theatrical version of the movie. Now, I'm not asking for a three hour retrospective documentary on the film, but give me the deleted scenes so I can verify the validity of the claim that while still crap, the movie makes much more sense. Coincidentally, also a Dimension Films release. Hmm ...

Maniac Cop 2. I'm not sure what else I need to say about a movie called ... Maniac Cop 2 other than its a sequel to a film about a maniac cop which starred Bruce Campbell and Tom Adkins. And this is not on DVD other than on different continents. Does whatever company own this dreck think I don't want to see a high-def version of the titular character blowing away a police station full of cops or Leo Rossi's ugly mug? If Starz feels a need to show this and its inferior second sequel, there certainly has to be some demand for a DVD.

While these movies may not represent AFI's Top 100 list, I demand respect to be paid to these ... uh, movies. Fix it, Hollywood!!

Are You Ready For Freddy?

2009-12-04T23:54:00.005-05:00

Here is a link that you must click. Only play that video. Do not click any of the other tabs like "Freddy Krueger" and watch those videos. Shitty music tributes. But that one is tight, right? Badass! Well, forget about that, that is not a trailer for the real movie.

In case you did not know, there is a remake, or reboot, or possible rape of A Nightmare On Elm Street due to be released in 2010. That trailer you watched is by Christopher Johnson , an actor, writer, and producer, although most of his work seems to be in visual effects. He apparently is so excited about the new movie that he made that trailer. I was let down a bit after finding out that it wasn't for the real movie. However, after watching one, I did feel a little better. Right off, it looks pretty damn frightening.
You'll notice some things made it to this one from the original, such as the "Freddy's coming for you," song and the glove in the bath. Mayhaps a re-imagining of Johnny Depp's death scene? That would be delightful. Especially if Glen, who is now called Quentin for some reason, is still watching that funny tv with those funny headphones. He better not be watching an iPod, like they used in the Friday the 13th remake (I purposely did not link that piece of trash film).

I also like how they appear to show the "creation" of Freddy. This was something that was only referenced in the films, but was delved into a bit in Freddy's Nightmares. The series actually showed a trial of Freddy from my recollection, where he was in a glass box in the courtroom. I also remember the show alternating from pre movie storyline episodes involving Freddy to other random stories that had nothing to do with it, and were more like episodes of Tales from the Darkside. The cast doesn't really jump out at me, but that really doesn't matter I guess. The trailer does look pretty damn good in my opinion, and I will probably see this in the theatre.

Terminator Salvation: Review

2009-12-04T02:07:00.006-05:00

After watching Terminator Salvation, I was reminded of a skit that was basically a parody of dating services that used to play on MadTV called "Lowered Expectations." It's always frustrating to sit down to see a movie you've heard countless great things about only to be disappointed. Currently enjoying a rather deplorable 32% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Salvation didn't have a whole lot going for it as I sat down and pressed play.

While not the pinnacle of the Terminator franchise by any stretch, Salvation certainly was not the worst either. John Connor, now played by Christian Bale, still stuck in his gravely Batman voice, is joined by some new and old friends as he attempts to lead a small band of nuclear holocaust survivors against their machinist overlords. The funny thing about this film is that while the first three in the series focused on the Connor family in their dealings with their pending fate, this film turns more to Marcus Wright, played by Sam Worthington on the upcoming Avatar.

The film seems more of Marcus's explosive introduction to the bleak future, coming to terms with his "state of being", and trying to redeem himself for his previous indiscretions. It makes for an interesting enough story but Connor is pushed to the background, making his future importance seem trivial. This not only reduces Bale's screen time, Connor's story time like his pregnant wife and his defiance to the resistance leadership are half-baked and unfulfilled. I'm not sure if Bale decided to overact in light of the script's direction but I certainly have seen better work from him.

Taking a turn from the endless nights in skull-covered metropolises from the first two films (and possibly the third which I don't really remember), the landscape in the film is bright but utterly destroyed and bleak in a true end-of-the-world looking scenario. As abandoned cars litter the sides of the roads and burnt up buildings house our friendly resistance fighters, the almost bleached out photography looks more of a sequel to The Stand that to the first few films. However, the more open desolate fields lead a fan to wonder, where are the roaming armies of T-600s(?) and multiple HKs constantly seeking the remaining humans that were prominently showcased in the beginning installments. It almost seemed that the humans were quite balsy with their large compounds covered by massive floodlights, random explosions, and normal back and forth movement during the day, seemingly without fear of the machines.

I hate to make a review of a movie comparing it against the previous films, but not only is Terminator a franchise that spans the really awesome (T2) to the not-so-much(T3), but Salvation also has many references to its predecessors as well. From Linda Hamilton's recorded tapes to John, the Guns n Roses song featured in the second, the obligatory "I'll be back" and "Come with me if you want to live" statements, and the showdown in an industrial factory with apparently spark making machines and molten magma, this film most decidedly knows where it came from.

The problem, I fear, is where it is going. With its parent company in financial woes, the series could be picked up by another company or abandoned all together. This could lead some of the stronger elements of the series such as Christian Bale to ... bail on the project if it languishes in development hell or for whatever company makes the next entry to bang it out in favor of a buck, rather than the development of the series.

That sad, regardless of all the negative reviews I read when the film premiered over the summer and even recently with its release on video, I was rather surprised by Terminator Salvation.

Will I buy it? Eh, for under $9.00 or less ... on payday

Tiger Sharks Were Chumps

2009-12-03T23:07:00.005-05:00

I came across this You Tube video while trying to find info on a Thundercats movie. While I cannot validate that it is real, it seems to have Vin Diesel as Panthro and what appears to be Posh Spice as Cheetara. It also says that is will be out in 2009, so decide for yourself. In that video, Lion-O does seem to be voiced by Larry Kenney from the cartoon, but I cannot tell if it is physically him in that get up. I do, however vow to you this: if Vin Diesel is in that movie, I will punch an immigrant. And did you see Snarf? Did someone just superimpose a drawing over the film for God's sake? Now, I also found that alternatively, the movie will be CGI and out in 2010. Note the date on that post is 2007. I cannot find any real recent info (I will admit I got as far as page 3 of the search results, so if there is decent info beyond that, my bad).

Thundercats was badass. My favorite episodes were the Lion-O Anoitment episodes. There were 5 of them and he had to challenge the others against their own talents (Cheetara's speed, Pantro's strength) to earn his rank as Lord of the Thundercats. Shit, I even liked some of the gay, copycat shows, like Silverhawks and Tiger Sharks. Well, I don't know about "like" and "Tiger Sharks," but I bet you liked hearing that song, didn't you?

Thundercats better be loose, and soon.

News Roundup: 12/3/09

2009-12-03T14:53:00.003-05:00

The First Official Images from 'Sex and the City 2'
We still have no sequel to Ghostbusters and no progress on a feature film of Arrested Development but we do have a sequel to a movie that made men all over America cringe. Bravo, Hollywood.

Welcome Back to 'Zombieland'...In 3D!
Sadly, I did not get to see Zombieland in theaters but from all I have heard about it, a sequel in 3D is going to be awesome!

Cast Announced for 'Night of the Living Dead: Origins'
More zombies! Although, with the exception of Danielle Harris, I can't find one good thing about another g-d remake/sequel/whatever to the original Night. Pick a different public domain movie to shit on people!

Sequel Schmequel

2009-12-02T23:47:00.007-05:00

You ever notice that there is a bastard sequel stuck in most lengthy franchises? There is fairly often a sequel that doesn't have anything to do with any of the rest of the films in the series. For example,

A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge. That title is misleading. Freddy isn't taking revenge on anyone from the first movie, cause no one from it shows up until part 3. In fact, he "possesses" this kid who does the killing, rather than trying to kill the kids of the parents that burned him alive. Then part 3 pickes up with Nancy, and it continues it's formula of survivor of last film gets killed in next, leave one survivor, repeat.

Next, lets look at Halloween 3: Season of the Witch. According to IMDB, the reason this one was different, was because John Carpenter planned to release a new movie each year, with a completely different story. Due to poor box office performance, Michael Meyers was resurrected for part 4. I would believe that if this were the second film and not the third. This has absolutely nothing to do with any of the other Halloween films. Michael Meyers isn't even in it, as he "died" in the previous chapter. There is even a commercial for Halloween on a TV in this movie, as if to purposely futher separate it from the rest.

I will bring up Friday the 13th: A New Beginning because I feel that the only link in this movie is Tommy Jarvis, and a hockey mask. This is part 5, in which Tommy, who "killed" Jason in part 4, is in some bizzare camp for nut jobs. Not to post a spoiler for a film released in 1985, but Jason is not the killer. You will hear people try to tell you otherwise, but do not be brainwashed. If it were really Jason, why would he kill people, bury himself in his grave, to be brought back to life in part 6? That is dumb. It was Roy. Jason is in every other movie, and even when the story line of him, his mother, and Tommy, drops off (which I think is in part 7, starring Terry Kiser of Weekend at Bernie's) it still is somewhat linear. I mean, Freddy takes his mask, he goes to hell, they fight and he ends up in space, but at least he is IN them.

Nostalgia is Awesome: True Lies

2009-12-02T14:06:00.007-05:00

In my opinion, 1994 was one of the best years of cinema featuring many films that I continue to watch frequently. There were event films like the (overrated) Forrest Gump, summer popcorn movies like Speed, sequels that no one else seemed to like such as New Nightmare, as well as many others. One film that has withstood the test of time for effective filmmaking is True Lies.

Originally, I was going to write about how Tia Carrere seemed to drop off the face of the earth as she is especially good in this film. But then I looked at her IMDb page and was surprised she has actually been in quite a few projects, several unfortunately only showcasing her vocal talents. But as I continued watching, I remembered this is a kickass movie.

James Cameron may be best remembered for the equally awesome Aliens, Terminator series (at least the good ones), or the nausea-inducing Titanic, but this film is tightly-paced with a fantastic action story injected with a good dose of humor (and not the Weekend at Bernie's kind).

Every actor is the film is excellent with the notable standouts of the aforementioned Tia Carrere, Tom Arnold (who wasn't surprised by this), and even Jamie Lee Curtis as the housewife forced into her husband's secret world of espinonage. It even features a quite nice Eliza Dushku, who unfortunately was underage at the time so that will conclude this statement.

The over-the-top action sets, characters one can relate to, and humor that doesn't feel forced or shoehorned in was all in a perfect composition that made a fantastic movie, even if it seemed to drop off the radar for most. They really don't make movies like this anymore. Or perhaps they do, but none that I can remember off-hand which is a fairly important trait for the longevity of a film.

News Roundup: 12/1/09

2009-12-01T14:32:00.001-05:00

Summit Pictures To Distend TWILIGHT: BREAKING DAWN!
Will they call the second part "Breaking Dawn 2: Electric Boogalo"?

Paul Greengrass Quits 'Bourne 4'?
Well that sucks. Even if the camera work induces seizures and vomiting, Supremacy and Ultimatum were awesome. And not just because of Joan Allen either.

ClearPlay introduces first content filtering 1080p upscaling DVD player
I'm confused. Is this marketed to parents who are just too selfish to watch family-friendly movies or those who are too lazy to actually do something other than watch TV with their kids.

"Who You Gonna Call?" "Uh, Let Me Get Back To You On That."

2009-11-30T23:23:00.007-05:00

Ghostbusters 3. Let's make this happen. I want this to happen so bad, that I would cross the streams. Well, what's the hold up? Well, for one, Rick Moranis won't do it. Also, Sigourney Weaver keeps flip flopping (see Rick Moranis link). And as you can see, via the same link again, appranently, there is no confirmed director, either. Here, however is an interview with Ernie Hudson with a bit of info in it, stating that Ivan Riteman has confirmed it will happen and mentions when shooting will begin and when the movie will be out. I love this franchise, even with the second one being stricken with the Weekend at Bernie's Effect. While I have read some interesting and even good ideas for what the 3rd one should be about, I will not weigh in with my opinion on that. I will leave that to the professionals. I can say that I would rather not see "new ghostbusters" being handed the keys, as it were, but I understand that people are older. So if it has to be done that way, hopefully it will be tasteful. And can we not cheese out at the end with some random Jackie Wilson song that everyone sings to combat the "bad feelings?" That was a bit gay.

Remake of a Remake of a Sequel of a Novel of a ...

2009-11-29T13:48:00.001-05:00

I give up. Hollywood seems to be determined to weed out any original thought or story for the prospect of something that may yield a large box office take. Word is that Dimension Films is planning a remake to the remake of the 1979 original Amityville Horror. This movie not only spawned other haunted house rip offs but also several sequels in addition to its aforementioned remake.

It would seem that the window to remake a film is shrinking rapidly, much like the theater-to-home video window did as DVD gained acceptance. With the exception of new versions of previous foreign language films, an acceptable timeframe to remake a film was between 20 and 30 years if not more. The original zombie film took 22 years to be remade into color. One of my favorites, The Thing was a quasi-remake of a film 31 years previously. At that rate, the National Lampoon's Vacation series, Lethal Weapon, and the Police Academy series are all overdue for reboot city.

But wait! Why wait 20 years for an audience to forget a story when we can just go half of a decade? It already happened with the remake/reboot (what's the freaking difference anyway) of Hulk and possibly Superman too.

What's next? A remake of a film that hasn't yet been made? Ahhh ... close enough.

"I'm Going to Set the Building on Fire."

2009-11-28T16:44:00.008-05:00

Stephen Root is hilarious. You probably do not know his name, but you have seen him before, or at least heard his voice. Seen here, he is Milton Waddams in Office Space, possibly one of the funniest movies ever, definitely not suffering from the Weekend at Bernie's Effect. It was based on a Satruday Night Live animated short of the same name, created by Mike Judge. The SNL short actually focused on the Milton character, whereas the movie had him as more a supporting character in a few scenes to break up the hilarity with more hilarity. Speaking of Mike Judge, Stephen Root is also on King of the Hill as Bill, also created by Mike Judge (and Greg Daniels of the Simpsons). He has been in almost everything from Ghost to Seinfeld ("I think it's pine."). You will no doubt remember him from News Radio, as Jimmy James. I did not start watching News Radio until it had been on for a while, but I found it really funny. I mean, look at the cast: Andy Dick, Dave Foley, Phil Hartman. Hell, even Joe Rogan was funny. I just wanted to give a shout out to Stephen Root, as I think most people do not realize who and just how funny he is.

MSNBC Readers Are Morons

2009-11-27T21:37:00.006-05:00

Now, I understand opinions are subjective. What I like, you may not. That's fine as everyone is entitled to their own dumbass opinion. With a lame attempt to tie into Thanksgiving, MSNBC gives us their readers' choices of movies that are "real turkeys."

Pulp Fiction!?! Blair Witch Project!?! These two films, whether you like them or not, are two very influential and important films of the 90s. While neither would be on my top 10 list for Best Movies Ever, it seems rather egregious to couple them with such dreck as Battlefield Earth and Showgirls. Even Battlefield, the cinematic equivalent to diarrhea, doesn't even rank on IMDb's Bottom 100 Films, a list comprised of internet participants I trust much more than those of a cable news network.

Have these people not seen the horror of film on an average episode of MST3K? Or the final installment of the Police Academy series? Or Weekend at Bernie's 2? Again, I know opinions vary, but these people apparently need to watch more movies.

MSNBC: Gobble, gobble! 10 movies that are real turkeys

A Clarifying Discussion

2009-11-27T19:42:00.005-05:00

So I figured that I should, and later confirmed by Puck that it may be a good idea to, explain something about me.

I HAVE AN UNNATURAL OBSESSION WITH WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S.

I should first say that I realize that this movie is complete garbage and in no way aesthetically redeeming. Though I am a lover of fine cinema, there is room for fluff in my life, as there is with most people. I have a small collection of these on my DVD shelf. Some examples are: The Gate, Real Men, Joe Dirt, Friday the 13th Parts 5-8. But Weekend at Bernie's is different from the rest. What is it? Is it the hilarious premise of a dead man being passed off as alive for an entire weekend? No. Is it the Lichtenstein in Bernie's house at the Hamptons? Nope. Is it Tawny's fine ass exposed? Well, not entirely. Quite simply it is the pairing of Andrew McCarthy and Johnathan Silverman. Any scene of this movie that has the 2 of them bantering back and forth is some bizarre artwork, much like the aforementioned Lichtenstein. The combination of Silverman's stereotypical neurotic hyperdriven to success Jew and McCarthy's slacker, booze and sex crazed underachiever is like Reese's peanutbutter and Hershey's chocolate. Watch them! I honestly believe that they tried to pass dead a man as being alive for research!

Now, some of you will try to explain to me why no one should like this movie. You will say things like, "That dead body would have been a bit gamey after a few hours and especially after being wet, and being in that heat. Someone would have noticed." "I don't believe that that was an organized crime family for a minute, they were quite dullards." "Just because Bernie had a smirk on his face, doesn't make it funnier." Yes, yes, we can all point out the terrible inconsistencies, horrible editing and everything else that was wrong with it. But I have not seen the film over 100 times and have it memorized for the plot. It is for the brilliant back and forth between Larry and Richard written by Robert Klane that the plot was sacrificed for.

I may in future posts refer to the "Weekend at Bernie's Effect." This can have a couple of meanings:

1. Movie that although vastly inferior, will be playing in the background, or may even be watched anytime it comes on (i.e. Just One of the Guys, Police Academy 4). "Why are you watching Police Academy 4?" "Fucking Weekend at Bernie's Effect."

2. When 2 actors are really funny and basically are the only reason why a film is watchable, ala Johnathan Silverman and Andrew McCarthy (i.e. Jim Belushi and John Ritter in Real Men). "What is this, Real Men? What are you, retarded?" "Naw, dude, check out Belushi and Ritter. Totally have the Weekend at Bernie's Effect going on."

Please bear in mind that my obsession stops here, and does not continue to it's lifeless sequel (see what I did there?!). Not even Johnathan and Andrew could save it, and is what probably shelved the planned 3rd installment. That was just greedy.

Movie Scum Lives!

2009-11-26T18:09:00.001-05:00

Welcome to the best movie website based around aggregating internet news, podcasts, and reviews created by two chaps currently in Virginia ever!

Enjoy your time!