Random Ramblings of a Demented Doorknob.

Deep Thoughts From Jason Soto #2: Raiders Of The Lost Government Agent.

2012-01-26T00:01:00.000-06:00

[A while back, Jason Soto had a thought to discuss about film and used my blog as a place to post it, since his doesn't really allow for it. Ever since, whenever Jason has a deep thought about a film... I allow him to post it here. This is his next deep thought... from Jason Soto.]

Earlier in the day, I decided to watch a favorite of mine "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (None of that "Indiana Jones AND The Raiders of the Lost Ark" bullshit! It was originally called "Raiders of the Lost Ark" go to hell!) and while watching it this time around, I thought of something that I hadn't thought of before.

OK, so the plot of the movie, in a nutshell, is the U.S Government heard the Nazi's are digging around in Cairo for something but they don't know what. It involved some friend of Indy's and Indy tells them they're probably looking for the Ark of the Covenant. After hearing what all the Ark could do if it fell into Nazi hands, the U.S Government decides to send Indy after it before the Nazi's can.

So my question is: why didn't the U.S Government send some type of agent/cop or even some military person to go with Indy? I mean the Nazi's are involved, shouldn't our military get involved somehow? To put it in modern terms, it's like finding out Al-Qaeda is digging around in Afghanistan for some reason and the CIA sends in some history teacher from Harvard to find out why. By himself.

Now, the easy answer to this is because Indiana Jones is a motherfucking badass who doesn't need any help or protection. And yes, you're right. But in "Raiders," Indy and Marion get captured I don't even know how many times. I think a LITTLE help would've been needed.

And don't mistake this as me ranting, I still love the movie and this little question didn't ruin anything for me, nor do I mean to ruin it for you reading this. It was just one of those small thoughts that popped up. Kinda like Randal's rant about the Death Star blowing up the second time in "Clerks." Kinda like that.

50/50 Review #2: Dirty Harry.

2012-01-25T00:01:00.001-06:00

During the 60/60 List, I discovered that the 1970s was equally my favorite and least favorite decade of film. Strangely, the first movie of the 50/50 has a 70s vibe, while this second is actually from 71. And so far, there's been nothing to make my dislike the 70s this year.

Dirty Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) is so nicknamed because he's given the 'dirty' jobs that nobody else will (or can) do. So of course he's on the case when a new serial killer called the Scorpio Killer (Andrew Robinson) shows up. He's partnered up with Chico Gonzalez (Reni Santoni) to find this man and take him down, but it's not as easy as it sounds.

I've been meaning to see this one for a long time, so I'm glad I've finally gotten around to it. What really makes this film is Eastwood. The character of Dirty Harry is great. He's smooth, cool, and badass. The epic scene near the beginning where he foils a bank robbery (leading to the first use of the classic line) is fantastic. It really showcases what kind of person he is. The same goes for a scene where he talks to a guy trying to commit suicide. I enjoyed the fact that we saw other situations he had to deal with besides just the serial killer. It made it feel more realistic.

Unfortunately, I did have a negative. It's only one thing, but I couldn't help but be bothered by it. I know he's supposed to be totally insane, but the bad guy in this film was too much for me. He was way too over-the-top and silly. And there was just something about the way he talked in general that rubbed me the wrong way. So yeah, I really didn't care for the portrayal of the villain in the movie.

But you can tell so much was inspired by this film. I've seen plot lines in TV shows and movies that are taken directly from events that happen in this movie. I'm no expert so I can't say anything about similar films that came out before this one, but as far as I know, this is the earliest I've seen the "run from phone to phone around town with a time limit" bit done.

Anyway, if you haven't seen this yet, I do recommend it for Eastwood and his character alone. The film is really entertaining, and you can tell it has inspired a lot of other things in its genre. The villain might be over-the-top, but it didn't ruin the movie for me or anything. The music, also, is very 70s, so be prepared for that. Otherwise, it's a fun flick, and I recommend it.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Well, that's my first month on this project. I know it was only 2 flicks, and they were my own picks, but it was more transition period than anything. Getting back into the zone! It was an OK month. I wasn't over-the-moon about either movies, but I liked them well enough. Now... on to Travis' Month!)

V.G. Movies #2: Super Mario Bros.: Peach-Hime Kyushutsu Dai Sakusen.

2012-01-23T00:01:00.011-06:00

[Welcome back to the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. Every week, I will be moving forward through time, starting with the earliest and ending with the most recent of video game movies. I will be detailing the histories of the games and how the films came about, and both my and fan reaction to the adaptations. Practically all of my background information is either common knowledge or from Wikipedia. So without further ado, let's move on to the next film on the list.]

THE HISTORY

Last time, I discussed the video game crash of 1983-1985 and its potential causes. One of those reasons had been an influx in gaming systems, allowing too much competition. Again, one of those competing systems was a platform called the ColecoVision. Now, one of ColecoVision's most famous titles was that of Donkey Kong, released New Years Eve 1982. This game was the first platformer to include jumping and, as such, is considered the first true platformer and the originator of the genre as it is today. Though it didn't start with Coleco.

Nintendo wanted some characters they could market over multiple games, so they took a look at Popeye (brute steals girlfriend, hero has to save) and became inspired. In the game, the main character, Jumpman, must save his pink-dressed, blonde-haired girlfriend. Now, with computer animation being relatively new at the time, animators found it tricky how to get the little guy to move right. They couldn't draw a mouth, so a mustache was put there instead; hair was hard, so they put a cap on him; and they couldn't see his arms move, so colored overalls it was. They also eventually renamed the girlfriend and Jumpman after people they knew or who had helped them, giving them the names Pauline and Mario, respectively. The game became wildly popular in the arcade and was eventually sold to Coleco for home console porting.

Popularity was intense, so a spin-off entitled Mario Bros. was developed. Mario now had a brother, Luigi, and though Mario was originally a carpenter, he was made a plumber due to his look and location. The game was about the two brother plumbers who must save New York after strange creatures start coming out of the sewer pipes. But bouncing around and attacking enemies from below was too easy, so the concept of just knocking them onto their backs and kicking them away was born. What kind of creatures came from that idea? Turtles, as their shells made it easy for them to get stuck on their backs.

Although released during the crash, the game was popular enough not to be affected. And so a sequel was called for, which was also to be used as a swan song for the Famicom (the Japanese name for the NES). Enter... Super Mario Bros. for the NES. And now, the turtles could be stomped on, since they just felt flipping them first would be illogical. They also wanted Mario to be able to change sizes, so while looking into ancient folk lore, they discovered stories where people would walk into forests and eat magical mushrooms. Thus, the mushrooms and the Mushroom Kingdom were born. The game was released in 1985, along with the NES itself (in America), and helped save the video game industry from the crash.

The game's popularity skyrocketed, and Japan wanted to release a film immediately to cash in on the success. On July 20, 1986, they released an anime movie in Japanese theaters. The film was called Super Mario Bros.: Peach-Hime Kyushutsu Dai Sakusen (or, roughly translated, Super Mario Bros.: The Great Mission to Rescue Princess Peach!). Nobody knows how well it did or anything like that. The film was never released in another language, nor was it released on DVD. It's also almost impossible to find on VHS, making it one of the rarest movies in the world.

However, you can find fan-made subtitled and dubbed versions on YouTube. And that's how I saw it.

THE FILM

Holy Hell is this movie weird. I'm serious. The game itself makes more logical sense. There's no way a formal review can do this justice. So in that light, I'm going to do a Jason Soto-style review where I take you through the movie and give my thoughts as we go.

The movie begins with Mario playing a video game similar to Super Mario Bros., but with a couple differences here and there. Luigi comes in and complains a few times, but leaves him alone. And then... out of nowhere... Princess Peach and a bunch of the monsters from the Mario games fly out of the TV. Peach proclaims she's being attacked by Bowser, who is trying to take over her Mushroom Kingdom. Then Bowser himself bursts through and kidnaps the princess back into the game, leaving Mario in a panic. But he finds her necklace on the floor and takes it.

So you know how Mario and Luigi are supposed to be plumbers? Well, despite being referenced as such later in the movie, they work at a grocery store. You see them with a customer, but then Luigi notices the necklace... and this is where things stop making sense. Luigi states that the necklace belongs to the Mushroom Kingdom where they will be able to find a ton of treasure. (Luigi is a greedy spaz in this film.) So I guess the video game world and the real world exist in the same universe? But earlier, Luigi thought Mario was insane for saying Princess Peach had shown up asking for help, etc., since she's just a video game character.

Anyway, a centipede dog thing shows up, steals the necklace, and causes the brothers to chase after him. They chase him to this field full of pipes... which are there for no reason. Just empty pipes laying around. They end up going down one of the pipes after the centipede dog and travel to the magical universe of the Mushroom Kingdom... which I guess ISN'T part of their own world. Because they meet this old hermit guy who tells them they are the legendary heroes who will save the princess. Why are they the chosen legendary heroes? Because they play video games and can thus find treasure better. I kid you not. There's no telling of a prophecy or a magic book that speaks of their greatness. They just know about the Mario Bros. and know they are the legendary heroes... because they play video games. Anyway, they have to find the mushroom of growth, the fire flower, and the invincibility star in order to defeat Bowser.

So they start on their journey (with the centipede dog tagging along), where we have our first of many montage sequences. They're spotted by a couple Goombas as they rest for the night. The Goombas trick Luigi into eating some mushrooms... which he basically gets stoned off of. Again... no joke. They alter his emotions. Then a flying turtle kidnaps them and tries to feed them to its bird children. But while they're in the nest, Mario spots a crystallized mushroom. He climbs the tree to get it, releasing it... but also gets showered by a bunch of coins that spray from the tree. They fall to the ground... and the coins turn into female versions of Toad (or Toadettes). They thank the brothers for freeing them and give Mario the growth mushroom, then give him a kiss on the cheek.

Begin another montage full of bizarre imagery that has Mario using the mushroom to fight against stuff (like bullets and koopa troopas). But the Goombas from earlier followed them and give them bad directions, leading them into a forest of the man-eating plants. They quickly escape, though... but I guess because three of the plants got tangled up, the entire forest sinks into the ground? I'm not sure how that works.

But they're not out of trouble yet, as a turtle-in-a-cloud shows up and throws spikes at them for trespassing. He waters the spikes and gives them light so they turn into the giant spiky turtles. But Mario sits on a growing vine and flies into the air where he grabs onto a piece of the cloud and rips it off. He starts to control the weather with it and makes it snow. The enemies below (who have surrounded Luigi and centipede dog) are bored waiting for Mario to do something. Everybody gets covered in snow. But then the snow melts and everything turns to grass and flowers and the cloud turns into another Toadette. Um... yeah. The Toadette gives him a fire flower.

Cue montage. Mario uses fireball powers. They break some stone boxes to get coins and some boxes of ramen noodles with labels that have their faces on them... still with me? The Goombas then trap them in a cave, and it's at this point we switch perspectives for a minute. Now we're with Peach and Bowser. Peach is angry and wants to be set free, but Bowser just wants to marry her. In fact, he has a little school-boy crush on her and loves her. To show this, he transforms into different weird things. Peach tries to get him to turn into a teddy bear and trap him in a box, but it doesn't work.

Back in the cave, Luigi digs an escape while Mario daydreams about dancing with Peach. They barely escape the hammer-throwing turtle and find the invincibility star. But it falls into the water. Mario and centipede dog jump in after it. Amazingly, Mario can breath and talk just fine underwater. He looks around for the star while being chased by inflatable fish. He finds it in a clam, but gets trapped inside, so the centipede dog has to tickle it to release Mario, and they swim off. But they're chased again and escape into an old sunken ship that starts to rise out of the water. Then they're attacked by a giant squid, so they blow air (despite being underwater) to make the sail push them out. They finally escape, grab Luigi, and sail off... um... into the sky. But it does eventually come back down onto the water.

The wedding ceremony starts, but Mario and Luigi arrive just in time. Bowser escapes further into his castle with Peach, leading the others to chase after him. You can imagine the weird things they have to avoid while following (WHY would somebody have a room with a lava pit and elevating platforms? What purpose does that otherwise serve?). But Luigi accidentally floods the place while looking for more gold coins, which somehow causes the entire castle to collapse. But Bowser attacks Mario in the rubble. Mario goes to eat the invincibility star to fight back, but some food randomly appears out of nowhere to distract him, and he drops the star to eat the noodles. But then Luigi shows up with the star.

Long story short here, Mario eats the gold star, becomes invincible, and saves the princess. Fun fact--the way he defeats Bowser (by spinning him and tossing him by his tail) was a method later adapted in the hit game Super Mario 64. Anyway... then... get this... the centipede dog transforms into a boy who looks younger than Peach. And then Peach reacts with a "Daddy?" Yeah, that's right. The centipede dog was a transformed king the whole time... but the king looks even younger than his daughter. Anyway, Mario and Luigi leave with no real reward or anything. Then there's an after-credits scene where the grocery store customer from the beginning goes inside and is served by Bowser and his Goombas. The end.

Honestly, whether you think my description there was weird or not... I don't think I even covered the tip of the iceberg on how bizarre this little movie gets. A lot of it has to do with the visuals. The animation itself is fine, but there is a lot of bizarre stuff going on in this movie. Half of it makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't even mention the fact that the entire movie is playing a mixture of J-Pop and music from the games. And there are game sound effects littered throughout. At certain points, anytime the brothers even walk one step, you get the "Mario jumping" sound. Just stuff like that. And on a nit-picky side, Luigi's outfit is blue in this, while it's usually green.

There's no wonder this movie was never released after its theater debut and a minor VHS release. The thing is a trippy trainwreck. You can tell they just wanted to incorporate every little thing from the game in this film but had no idea how to do it. We all know this is a near-impossible story to adapt as it is, but they didn't even try to have it make any sense. If you're a super-fan of the series, I'd say track it down for completionist's sake. Otherwise, only bother with it if you just want something bizarre.

WTF

(P.S. I know this is two weeks in a row with this rating, but I promise that'll stop. Stay tuned next week where I take a look at the American's attempt to adapt the non-adaptable.)

The Vlog: Season 4, Episode 3 (Story Time #1 - The Dark Knight).

2012-01-22T00:01:00.002-06:00

NOTE: Apparently today is the 4-year anniversary of Heath Ledger's death. The posting of this episode did not mean to correspond with that day... it's just a really bizarre coincidence. (Kinda like how this season started on Nic Cage's birthday... but more morbid.)

It's time for the first Story Time of the season! I consider these episodes "Plot B," as it were, while the even-numbered episodes from this point on are "Plot A." And this is also where things start to get even crazier. Dylan turns in yet again a fantastic performance with some brilliant camera work that just adds to the atmosphere of the scene. (I'm sure he'd like to tell you it was intentional... but I'm relatively sure it just kinda happened that way. Sorry, Dylan!)

Anyway, I hope you enjoy this episode. If you want reference to what's being done in this episode... either watch the movie or click here for the scenes. Otherwise, have fun and let me know what you think!

50/50 Review #1: Jackie Brown.

2012-01-18T00:01:00.002-06:00

Welcome to the first post of the 50/50 Project. I've been wanting to see this one for a while, as it's the only full-length Tarantino I hadn't seen. Though from what I had heard, it was one of his lesser efforts (or at least the one nobody seems to talk about). Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is a flight attendant who brings money back from Mexico for an arms dealer named Ordell (Samuel L. Jackson). Ordell is meanwhile entertaining Louis (Robert De Niro), a guy who has recently gotten out of jail, by letting him hang around and chat up Melanie (Bridget Fonda). But after Ordell takes care of a situation with Beaumont (Chris Tucker), he hires a bail bondsman, Max Cherry (Robert Forster) to get Jackie out of jail when she gets mixed up in the situation. But a couple FTA agents, including Ray (Michael Keaton), want her to bust Ordell, bringing up a complicated heist-like situation.

I can understand why nobody tends to talk about this one out of the Tarantino filmography. The man is known for a certain style, but it seems only half of style was there. The film was almost all dialogue, as his films always are, but the dialogue this time around wasn't super interesting. Tarantino also tends to have a kind of kinetic style, a certain energy to his films, and this was also lacking here. At least half the movie felt dry and stagnant. I guess it just didn't have the usual pizzazz one would expect from Tarantino.

The part of the movie that did feel stylish and did finally catch my interest was the last 45 minutes (roughly). Basically when the money exchange sequence happens up through the end of the movie. The whole sequence plays with narrative style in a way I really enjoy, not to mention it's just a fun and suspenseful sequence.

Despite the flaws elsewhere, the acting was really good all around. Everyone seemed to be having fun, but the most fun to watch was Robert De Niro. It wasn't a very De Niro-type role, and he was pretty funny just doing pretty much nothing for the majority of the movie. By the third act, he's more De Niro-ish, but it's all good. On the whole, everybody does the best they can with what they were given.

In the end, I agree this was a weaker effort from Tarantino, but it's still a decent film. It's just that in the front 2/3s of the film, there were a lot of scenes that really dragged and could have been trimmed down. There were some key visuals that definitely made it Tarantino (some worked, others were slightly awkward), but something just didn't mesh well. Though, again, the last third of the film was entertaining enough to really hike up my feelings on the rest of it, so at least it ends on a high note, making the rest of the film worth sitting through.

I Am McLovin!

V.G. Movies #1: Cloak & Dagger.

2012-01-16T00:01:00.009-06:00

Welcome to the first post of the Evolution of Video Game Movies series, where I will hopefully be mixing entertainment with a wee bit of history and education. I'm not an expert, so don't quote me on everything. I just know what I get from my research (if I haven't played the game myself and/or don't know the history myself). So let's get started, shall we?

THE HISTORY

In the early-to-mid 80s, there was a growing phenomenon going on with movies and their video game tie-ins. Of course you have your truly infamous releases like the E.T. video game. But there are four in particular where video games were central to the plot of the films themselves, and there was a near-simultaneous release of the tie-in games with the release of the films (with the exception of one, wherein the game came a while later). These films were WarGames, Tron, The Last Starfighter, and Cloak & Dagger.

So what sets Cloak & Dagger apart from the other three? It's a popular trend these days, even, to release a video game tie-in to a popular film soon after the movie's release. But what sets Cloak & Dagger apart is that the video game actually came out first. As the film was being produced, the early video game company "Atari" was producing a game entitled Agent X. The two productions heard of one other and joined forces. Agent X became Cloak & Dagger and was released in March 1984 in arcade form.

The film version was released as a double-billing with The Last Starfighter in July of 1984, and later alone the following month. Now, as I said earlier, the game itself is central to the plot of the story... but while the game footage shown is from the arcade version, the actual cartridge shown within the film is for the Atari 5200 system. Now, apparently this version was planned to happen, but then something tragic occurred, and the home version could never be made.

From 1983-1985, there was a major video game crash in North America that nearly brought the industry crumbling into non-existence. It was due to a mixture of reasons, including but not limited to an excess of consoles and competition (including the ColecoVision, which put out, among other things, the video game adaptation of WarGames), as well as a slew of poor titles for said consoles. One such title was the aforementioned video game adaptation of E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, which was so bad it almost single-handedly tainted the reputation of the industry. In fact, all extra copies of the game were henceforth buried (yes, buried) and Atari had to be sold. We'll get a little more into the effects of this next time... but for now, back to Cloak & Dagger.

FUN FACTS

I mentioned the ColecoVision earlier, having released the WarGames game, but it was also the primary competition for the Atari 5200. Curious that one of the co-stars of WarGames was none other than co-star of Cloak & Dagger, Dabney Coleman. It's also funny that the E.T. game was monumental in the downfall of Atari and the fact that Cloak & Dagger could not be released on the Atari 5200, as shown in the actual movie. Why, you ask? Because the star of the film Cloak & Dagger... is none other than Elliot himself, Henry Thomas.

Synergy, baby.

THE FILM

This is one messed up kid's movie. Seriously. I would have liked to have been in the board meeting when they came up with the idea for this movie.

"OK, for our main character, let's have two little kid main protagonists (Henry Thomas and Christina Nigra) who hang out with a middle-aged hacker/store owner (William Forsythe). The main boy's mom has recently died, leaving him and his father (Dabney Coleman) in a grieving state. Due to this, he speaks to a fictional character (also Dabney Coleman) who only he can see so that everybody else thinks he's insane. Of course, said fictional character also talks him into doing insane, dangerous, and illegal things. He then gets his hand on a microchip inside a video game that mobsters are after, so they constantly destroy his things, try to kill him and his friend, and chase him all around the city. To make it even better... not a single person believes him!"

This movie really has some dark stuff. I mean, there's even a scene where Jack Flack (the imaginary guy) forces Henry Thomas into the trunk of the bad guy's car, where he has to lay next to a dead body of a friend for the whole of the drive. There's another scene where they dangle a little girl over the edge of a cliff just to get the game cartridge. And... just a ton of other things I can't even get into due to spoilers (anything within the climax, for instance). But all of it is under the tone of a light, fun kid's movie.

On top of the dark stuff, there's quite a mix of cheesy and illogical. These people never act like normal people would act, for starters. The bad guys are total morons, and I have no idea how they've ever made it this far in life, much less in villainy, with some of the stupid things they do (or are stupid for not doing). Then there's the whole fact that this kid is such a huge fan of the game Cloak & Dagger that he imagines the main character as real... and he just so happens to get mixed up in a conspiracy of some kind that hides government information in a chip within a Cloak & Dagger cartridge? And one of his best friends just so happens to be a middle-aged gamer/hacker? Keep in mind, this kid is like 12 at most, and his female friend is 8.

The acting is absurd, too. Besides the "this is SO not how a person would react" type acting, you're mainly left with cheese. Actually, Henry Thomas does fairly well. But Dabney Coleman is a bit hammy, and every other actor is cheesy or over-the-top. The worst, though, is Christina Nigra as Henry Thomas' friend Kim. Her performance is something else entirely. I can't even explain it.

If you took away the whimsical music and child-friendly tones and gave it to a director like David Fincher, this would be one heck of a psychological thriller (as it is, it's almost like an 80s kids version of Black Swan). But as it stands, this movie is totally screwed up... I mean, it's almost traumatizing how disturbing this movie gets (again, mostly thanks to the tone vs. what's actually happening). If you look past all that, it's actually not that bad of a film. It's entertaining for what it is, and it's never boring. I'm relatively certain it's not a direct adaptation of the game, but rather a film that involves the game itself, its themes, and its main character (actually, it is fun that they mention Jack Flack's previous name was Agent X, which--as previously stated--was the name of the game before they changed it to Cloak & Dagger). If you haven't seen it, it's not incredibly recommended viewing, unless you just really want to see one of the most messed up kids movies I've seen in a while. But it's good enough.

WTF

(P.S. I know it's kind of a bad start to basically say "this is the first movie of this series, and I have no idea how to rate it"... but that's how it's gotta be!)

FINAL NOTE

OK, so the real reason I wanted to include this film is because of one scene. There's a moment where Henry Thomas goes to the Alamo (the whole movie takes place in San Antonio, TX), and at the end of the scene, there's a brief moment where he's apprehended and questioned by the Alamo guard. The guard? My (late) grandfather! This was one of the two movies he was in (the other being Terms of Endearment). Yup, he got to talk to/interact with Henry Thomas here, which I think is pretty cool. You can click here to go to a video of the scene (and just skip ahead to about 8:30).

The Vlog: Season 4, Episode 2 (Switcheroo - Part 2).

2012-01-15T00:01:00.001-06:00

Alrighty. Here's Part 2 of the 2-part season premiere. This one was a bit tricky as I had to do a lot of image movement, but it turned out just fine, I think. Hope y'all enjoy! And as always, let me know what you think.

The Demented Podcast #31 - It's Frankenstein's Monster!

2012-01-14T00:06:00.001-06:00

NOTE: Not sure why it hasn't shown up on the player yet... but it's available for download on iTunes and on the podomatic site... so if Ep 31 still hasn't shown up here, just check there.

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

I honestly can't believe I pulled it off (OK, maybe just a little). Let me give you some back story on "the episode that refused to exist." So our poor guest this week was Jessica from The Velvet Cafe. For those who do not know, Jessica is from Sweden, so the time difference is slightly trickier to play with when setting up a recording time. So a few days before we come to record, some issues arise on Jessica's end, and we have to reschedule. Finding a day/time takes us a while, but we settled on early Sunday morning.

So come Sunday morning, I wake up about 15 minutes prior to recording and try to log on to Skype... only to find out that Skype decided to have problems at that time and refused to let me on. We did later come to the conclusion that Skype was at fault and not my computer. So I ended up coming on about 20 minutes late. So we start the show... only to very quickly discover that Steve's internet connection totally blows. The following 45 minutes is agony as it takes us that long just to get TO the listener feedback/comments. There was a mixture of massive delays horrid audio, and even a few echoes here and there.

We finally come to the realization about 2 minutes into the discussion of the first film (after trying to record for almost an hour) that this isn't going to work. Our solution was this: I continue the show alone with Jessica, then Steve and I would meet up later in the week and record a mini-session discussing the films. I would then splice in (no pun intended) his audio with the main file at variable moments. It would take a lot of work on my part, but it was possible.

But then the day came... and now my connection turned to crap. I couldn't stay connected. The audio sucked half the time. Basically everything that was happening to Steve the first time through was happening to me this time. But we did get through it, somehow, and I ended up with about 2.5-3 hours of audio and 5 different audio files (plus a 6th for the opening segment of this episode which was recorded a week or more before we did the rest of it). And after 4 hours of non-stop editing, I pulled it off. I managed to create my own Frankenstein monster, Hodge-podge of an episode. And I think it actually turned out rather well! You can barely tell there were any audio problems at all... and hopefully the majority of the time the transitions into Steve's comments feel natural, as if he were there the whole time (since, you know, he wasn't). Even will all that description, I guess only Steve, Jessica, and myself will be the only ones to truly know the transformation of what I was given and what I'm giving you.

All of that being said... I hope you enjoy this episode. We discuss idea/moral-based Sci-Fi films with Silent Running and Splice. And then Jessica climbs the Tower. The last Swede to do so gave us our best score ever... so how will this one fare? Listen to find out!

Current/Previous Battle Royale Champions

(BR3) ? - ?
(BR2) Dylan Fields - 114 Points
(BR1) Rachel Thuro - 171 Points

You can listen to this episode on the player below or by subscribing through iTunes.

That being said, enjoy! Thanks goes out to Kevin MacLeod's Incompetech website for great, royalty-free music. And thanks to Google for helping me find a website that will give me free video game audio samples.

The Vlog: Season 4, Episode 1 (Switcheroo - Part 1).

2012-01-08T00:01:00.002-06:00

Well guys and gals, this is it! It's the start of the newest season of The Vlog! It's full of wackiness, twists, and turns, and I hope everyone digs it! This is just part 1 of the 2-part premiere... the second part obviously going to be put up next Sunday.

I'll also say that this was probably the most difficult set of episodes I've ever had to put together. There are numerous tricks, filming and editing, that had to be done and put together. Split screen, long takes, simultaneous takes/edits, and minor special effects. So I hope it turned out as well as I hope it did. So... let's just get right to it. And, of course, let me know what you think.

(Note: You'll also note slightly higher video quality... because I finally figured out how to export it with better quality.)

Announcement: The Evolution of Video Game Movies Series.

2012-01-05T19:21:00.004-06:00

So last year, I had 2 projects going on simultaneously. I had the 60/60 Project and the Musical Mondays countdown. This year, I obviously have the 50/50... but what about the second project? It took me a while, but it finally clicked with me. It won't be as time consuming seeing I don't have the worry about "extras" with the 50/50 list as I did with the previous. So what I'm going to do...

...is the Evolution of Video Game Movies series. I'm going to start in the 80s and work my way up through 2012. As of right now, I have 45 movies on the list--but that's assuming the Silent Hill sequel actually comes out this year and the next Resident Evil isn't pushed back. But assuming those are all on board, I'll have that amount.

A lot of the films I've already seen (29 of the 45 listed... I also happen to own... 10 of the listed films, as well, either on VHS or DVD). So what I'm going to do along with the actual review is a bit of research. I'm going to discuss some history and whatnot and how it works as an adaptation (and/or fan reactions if I'm not privy to the game myself). So yeah... I want it to be entertaining from a review side (we all know video game movies tend to suck), but I also want it to be kind of educational and maybe spur some discussions. I'm not going to group the movies by type or anything. I want to view in chronological order. So here's how it's gonna go down... as best as I can plan.

(Note: I'll start this the same week as the 50/50.)

(Note 2: If I'm missing anything major... please let me know. There's space I could easily fill up here.)

JANUARY
-Cloak and Dagger (1984)
-Super Mario Bros.: Peach-Hime Kyushutsu Dai Sakusen (1986)
-Super Mario Bros. (1993)

FEBRUARY
-Fatal Fury: The Motion Picture (1994)
-Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie (1994)
-Double Dragon (1994)
-Street Fighter (1994)

MARCH
-Mortal Kombat (1995)
-Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)
-Pokemon: The First Movie - Mewtwo Strikes Back (1998)
-Wing Commander (1999)

APRIL
-Pokemon: The Movie 2000 (1999)
-Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)
-Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)
-Resident Evil (2002)
-House of the Dead (2003)

MAY
-Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003)
-Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
-Alone in the Dark (2005)
-Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (2005)

JUNE
-Doom (2005)
-BloodRayne (2006)
-Silent Hill (2006)
-DOA: Dead or Alive (2007)

JULY
-Postal (2007)
-The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)*
-BloodRayne 2: Deliverance (2007)
-Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)
-Hitman (2007)

AUGUST
-In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2008)
-Alone in the Dark 2 (2008)
-Far Cry (2008)
-Max Payne (2008)

SEPTEMBER
-Resident Evil: Degeneration (2008)
-Street Figher: The Legend of Chun-Li (2009)
-The King of Fighters (2009)
-Tekken (2009)

OCTOBER
-Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)
-Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)
-Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)**
-BloodRayne: The Third Reich (2010)
-Mortal Kombat: Legacy (2011)***

NOVEMBER
-Tekken: Blood Vengeance (2011)
-In the Name of the King 2 (2011)

(?)
-Silent Hill Revelation (2012)****

*I know this is a cheat, but it's a damn fine movie and there's a LOT to talk about with it.
**This film comes out about a month prior to this review schedule... but I don't want to put this at the end of the month due to timeliness, nor do I want to put it before the review of the film that comes before it.
***This is a web-series, but I cannot pass up discussing this.
****This will be shifted depending on if/when it gets an official release date.

Random Thought: 2011 - A Year Of Great Action, Poor Plots?

2012-01-03T00:01:00.000-06:00

Just a random thought, but did anybody else notice that 2011 had a lot of movies with excellent action, but that were lacking in other areas? I mean, here are 10 movies, for instance, where I found this to be quite clear. (The order of films is unimportant. I'm just listing them out.)

1) I Am Number Four

It was a very average and lackluster film, but mostly because of characters and story, etc. However, the action itself, especially near the climax, was actually pretty good. It wasn't the greatest (especially in comparison to the others on this list), but it was pretty good. Everything else needed a lot of work, though.

2) Drive Angry

A film that split a lot of people. You either loved it or hated it. I personally loved it. I mean, I won't deny that the story or the characters weren't all that spectacular (except for William Fichtner). But there were some great action sequences that really brought the movie together for me.

3) Battle: Los Angeles

To me, this movie was a lot like Black Hawk Down in numerous ways. It was an overly simplistic story with undeveloped characters... but it was pure action that actually looked pretty dang good.

4) Sucker Punch

Now this was a movie that pissed off a lot of people. Now, I really liked it when I first saw it, but I understand where everybody else was coming from. There's really no point in discussing this film any more because everybody has talked it to death. You know it was stunning to look at, you know the action was fantastic... but it lacked everywhere else imaginable.

5) Transformers 3

I'm sure you knew this one was going to end up here. Unlike the last installment of the 'trilogy', this one had some good moments, particularly in the last 30 minutes or so. But it's also Michael Bay... and does anybody actually remember what this movie was about? I know I don't.

6) Conan the Barbarian

Holy crap was this movie painful. It suffered everywhere... but it did have moments of pretty damn good action. It was the one positive thing I think I said about this movie.

7) Immortals

This one saddens me, because it's gorgeous to look at and has probably some of the best action sequences of the year. But everything in between the action scenes... leaves you a little wanting. Still, I think the visuals and action alone escalate this film to being one of my favorites of the year, despite the lackluster story and characters.

8) Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Very similar to the previous film on this list, it has some of the best action of the year... but everything in between is moderately lackluster.

9) Warrior

I recently reviewed this one, so you can just read that for more details. I'll just say I haven't seen a more cliched and dully written film with such great action (and, to be fair, great performances).

10) Drive

Oh yeah, I went there. One of the most beloved films of 2011 fits the bill, as well... probably closely related to the previous title on this list. It has cliches and is your basic heist-gone-wrong/revenge story. The characters (outside of the hardly-says-a-word Driver) are rather basic. But the action? Stylish and brutal.

Final note: I just found it interesting not many other people seemed to pick up on this. I mean, I know every year has movies like this; I just think it was more abundant this year than I've seen in a long time. And there are most likely even more than I listed here. There were just a lot of flicks this year that had great action, but needed a little more polishing in one or more other departments. Any reasons why you think this has happened? Thoughts in general?

2011 Round-Up: 30 Minutes Or Less, Warrior, And Drive.

2012-01-02T00:01:00.000-06:00

Just wanted to do a few short reviews of some 2011 films I saw recently but have yet to review. The first I actually saw a while back and just didn't get around to reviewing it. The other two I saw much more recently. So first...

30 MINUTES OR LESS

Talk about a disappointing follow-up to Zombieland. I loved the director, I love Jesse Eisenberg, Nick Swardson has great stand-up (but isn't that great on film, generally), and Aziz Ansari is good on Parks and Rec. Oh, and it co-stars Rebecca from Greek! This wasn't awful, but it just wasn't that great, either. It was just pretty mediocre. The comedy wasn't fantastic. I maybe smiled once or twice throughout the film. The best parts were definitely Fred Ward and Michael Pena. But on the whole, it could have had more heart, more comedy, and more... everything, really.

Stop Saying OK! OK.

WARRIOR

Wow, talk about cliches. There was not one original idea in this movie, and it took everything straight out of the genre playbook. It could have been more a parody of this type of film than what it was. I was more blown away by the fact this movie was getting so much praise rather than the movie itself. I just could not get into it. At least for the first half. Then the fighting stuff started. The last hour of the movie has some amazing MMA fighting (though I've heard through the grapevine it's nothing like actual MMA fighting). Still, it was highly entertaining stuff. And yeah, the performances were great all around. It was just a very flawed and unoriginal movie saved by some nice action in the back-end.

I Am McLovin!

DRIVE

Talk about one of the most overrated movies of the year. Now, before you get out the torches and pitchforks, let me explain that I still liked it. I just didn't think it was the total SCREENGASM that everybody else on the planet said it was. And perhaps that's because I had it so over-hyped for me by the time I saw it that I couldn't be anything else but let down. I patiently sat through the first half of the movie, waiting for really anything to happen. I kept in the back of my mind that it was supposed to get intense and brutal, and the "elevator scene" was apparently this year's hamster wheel or something by the way it was talked about. So color me disappointed when all I could say afterwards was "...that's it?" I'm also giving the film the benefit of the doubt that it could have been the format in which I viewed it. Let's just say it probably wasn't the best way to see this film. Was Ryan Gosling great? Yeah. Was the film good? Definitely. I just don't think it fell into the insane quality that I'd heard about for the last 4 months or whatever. (Note: Funnily enough, this was the last 2011 movie I saw last year. The first 2011 movie I saw last year? Drive Angry.)

A Keanu 'Whoa'

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL.

2012-01-01T00:01:00.001-06:00

I've seen all the other Mission: Impossible films, though I don't really recall much from any of them. I will say, though... with all the insane action set pieces this movie delivers, I think it'll be hard to forget this one. This time, the story gives us, again, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), whose team has been framed for inciting war on Russia. The President declares Ghost Protocol, which shuts down the unit indefinitely. So now it's up to Ethan, Benji (Simon Pegg), Jane (Paula Patton), and Brandt (Jeremy Renner) to figure out what's really going on and stop it before it's too late.

There are two things that split this movie. There's the thing that makes it outstanding, and the thing that brings it down a bit. What escalates this film is the brilliant action. There are some truly suspenseful moments. I mean, you know Cruise is gonna make it, but it still keeps you on the edge of your seat. Everybody has seemingly been talking about two moments that pretty much happen back-to-back: scaling the building and the sandstorm chase. There's a reason for that, as they are both incredible moments in the film.

What brings the movie down, however... is everything else. I didn't feel incredibly invested in the overall story. It wasn't boring or anything, but it wasn't anything new or exciting. There's a nuke, they need to stop it, there are obstacles in the way. Again, what elevates the film is how they solve the obstacles. But getting to each one isn't all that enthralling. And I would actually argue that if it weren't for Simon Pegg, the non-action scenes would have been straight-up boring. Pegg brings charm and humor to every scene he's in, making the film that much better for it. And Renner does well himself, too, bringing both humor and sadness to the story.

When this film is good, it's really freakin' good. When it isn't, it's still good, but it could have been much better. I would agree that it's easily the best in the series. I do recommend it, and for three reasons. See it for the brilliant action, for Simon Pegg, and for Paula Patton eye candy... I mean, damn. They're nice. I mean, it's nice. The film. Action. Boom. Pegg. Funny. And stuff. Yeah. Check them... it... out. I'm gonna stop now.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Happy New Year!)

60/60 Thoughts: Part 3 (A Letter To My Readers).

2011-12-31T00:01:00.005-06:00

Dear Readers,

With the 60/60 Project at an end, there is something I need to get out, something that spawned itself over the last year on this blog. If there is one thing I learned over the course of this past year... it's that I'm not a film critic. I'm a film reviewer. And I think there is an equal place for both in the blogosphere. But over this year, I received a lot of flak for being a reviewer instead of being a critic. I was told people wouldn't read my blog because I was reviewing films that were "beyond review" and was offering nothing new. I wasn't bringing in depth of thought and discussion. At the same time, these are the same movies that are critic-proof. So what can you say about Citizen Kane? What do say about 2001: A Space Odyssey? I fought back against these accusations with my favorite review/critique of the year, Troll 2, a tongue-in-cheek appraisal of one of the worst movies ever made.

When I started this blog four years ago, I did it because I wanted to be an everyman reviewer. I wasn't setting out to be a fantastic film critic. To me, the film critic is asking for a very specific audience: film buffs. They want to discuss the intricacies of film, why the director did something a certain way, how things connect to a much larger picture, and what it means to the life, the universe, and everything. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just not what I do.

My purpose here has always been to bring in a general audience. It can be accessed by John Smith because he wants to know if Such-And-Such Movie is good or worth his time. And I'm not saying my opinion is the be-all-end-all opinion, either. I write my reviews in a specific format. Some have complained my reviews are dull, that I just talk about the acting, the music, the cinematography, etc. (i.e. the aspects that come together to make the film as a whole). My reason for doing so is to not only explain why my opinion is the way it is, but so the reader can formulate his/her own opinion of whether or not he/she wants to see a movie based on those specs.

I've also been recently insulted in the comments of another person's site that one offense I have committed that this person would never, ever commit is to say that I was bored by a movie or question why it was I was writing the review I was writing in the first place. (Granted, this same person also once vowed they would never, ever stoop so low as to insult me in the comments of their site... so I guess some things must be taken with a grain of salt.) But I digress. I do admit to, especially in the first half of this project, using the phrase "I'm not sure what to say" or at least something similar. I did recognize it as a flaw, and I have since stopped doing it. I've also been negatively accused of claiming a movie is too long and should be shortened. I will never, ever not say I was bored or that a movie should be shortened. And any film critics who state they have never said they were bored or that they feel a movie could use a bit more work in the editing room is a liar. It's not a sin to say a movie could be shorter in order to make it better. Even Ryan at The Matinee, who is a rather well-respected and great film critic on our side of the web, has said so himself. And just because I was bored by a favorite movie does not make me a bad reviewer. It just means we have different tastes in movies.

The purpose of the 60/60 List was to enlighten myself and fill in the gaps for classic movies of many varieties that I hadn't seen. And once I saw these films, I wrote my reviews and shared them so that you knew how I felt. If I loved them, great. If I didn't... oh well. The purpose of the 60/60 List was not to watch these films and then bring deep, insightful discussions on every piece about how they tie into popular culture and/or work as a view into societal issues. If it came up in the comments, great, I'd love to have a discussion. But that's not what I officially do here. And again, there's nothing wrong with those of you who do.

I want to wrap things up in an eloquent way... so I'm going to quote somebody else. Two people, actually. Both of these comments rather encapsulate everything I've been saying and everything I mean in this address. First up, my podcasting partner, Steve (though he wasn't at this time):

Both true criticism and reviews have their place in the world. More to the point, most people want reviews of films--they want to know if they'll like something and why.

Second, James Blake Ewing, who is a fantastic critic himself, once came to my defense saying the following:

The value of a movie reviewer is recommendation, but to suddenly place these films considered as "classic" in this pantheon where they can only be engaged under the lens of criticism is to make them infallible to the film review process.

Most people have watched a "classic" they did not care for and I think there's value in writing about why. This can help reshape the way we think about movies with the distance of time.

Does a film still hold up 40 years later? I think that's something a movie reviewer certainly should be able to do in order to give recommendations of older films as well as new ones. If these films don't hold up, perhaps its time to rethink the film's status as a classic. Therefore, I think the 60/60 reviews are a great idea.

That being said, the 60/60 Project is now over. But soon, the 50/50 will begin. The majority of that list is not of the same caliber, mind you, but the idea is the same. So if you do not like or appreciate or even "get" what it is I do here, then you do not have to read or comment. But for the rest of you, I thank you for your patience, your support, your comments, and your discussions. I hope that you continue with me into the next project and anything else I do over the course of the next year, and I hope to grow and become even better. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Nick

60/60 Thoughts: Part 2 (Favorites).

2011-12-30T00:01:00.003-06:00

Alright guys and gals, it's time for Part 2 of the 3-Part look at the 60/60 Project. Last time we focused on some facts. Today, we'll be looking at some opinions. To start us off, let's take a look at my favorite characters from all 100 films.

TOP 10 CHARACTERS

10) Jewish Barber/Hynkel (Charlie Chaplin) - The Great Dictator

It was an interesting mix of characters. Hynkel was basically Hitler, and the barber looked exactly like him. In the end, the butler is confused with Hynkel and makes a fantastic (and rather meta) speech. The characters were funny, interesting, and just all-around fun.

9) Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) - Gone With The Wind

Similar to my feelings toward one Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, I thought Rhett Butler always stole the show in Gone with the Wind. His were always my favorite scenes. And although I didn't dislike the rest of the film when he wasn't there, I did find myself enjoying it much more when he was.

8) Wong Fei-Hung (Jackie Chan) - Drunken Master

There's nothing overtly special about this character (besides the fact he becomes an awesome martial artist when he gets drunk). He was just a lot of fun. That's about all there is to it.

7) Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg) - Boogie Nights

A fascinating rags to riches and then self-destructive character. Wahlberg gives a great performance here... as does his member.

6) Luke (Paul Newman) - Cool Hand Luke

He's a badass without being an action hero. He stands up to "the man" and attempts to do the impossible just because he can. His pride might get in the way here and there, but he was, overall, a fantastic character.

5) Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) - The Lives of Others

I might not have adored the movie as a whole, but Georg Dreyman was a beautifully rendered character... brought to life magnificently by the late Sebastian Koch. The emotion he brings, the subtle movements, the slow change in character... it's just outstanding.

4) Alex (Malcolm McDowell) - A Clockwork Orange

One of the many controversies behind this film was that Kubrick adapted the original American release of the book, which did not include the final chapter... and totally changes the meaning of the novel and the character. Either version is fine, but McDowell's Alex is a fascinating look into the psychology of a sociopath.

3) Cosmo Brown (Donald O'Connor) - Singin' in the Rain

Hands down, the best part of that film. Cosmo was funny and full of quick wit. He pulled some great stunts and dances, too. Going into the film, I knew nothing about this character or actor, but he came out my favorite.

2) Kikuchiyo (Toshiro Mifune) - Seven Samurai

What is there to say about Kikuchiyo? He's a total enigma. He follows the others around curiously. He's a total wildcard. And his growth as a character is phenomenal. He might not be the main character of the film, but he's definitely the most memorable.

1) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (Paul Newman and Robert Redford)

I know, it's a cheat. But you can't have one without the other. They had perfect chemistry in this film. They were charming, funny, and daring. I was told their chemistry was even better in The Sting, but although I loved that film more, I had to disagree with that sentiment. These two were, hands down, my favorite.

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

For the next few lists, I want to look at different types of scenes. There won't be any explanations unless something doesn't embed. I'll just give you the video clips and let them speak for themselves. First up, let's take a gander at my favorite quiet moments.

TOP 5 QUIET MOMENTS

Honorable Mention: The Ending Scene - The Graduate

5) Good/Bad/Ugly - Confederate Soldier Scene

Embedding unavailable. Click here to see it.

4) Cuckoo's Nest - Face Focus

I couldn't find the video here... but there's a moment after, I believe, McMurphy sends Billy off to have sex with Candy. McMurphy goes and sits down, and there's a long shot of Nicholson's face. He goes through multiple emotions, and you just wonder what's going on in his head. It's very reminiscent of the Graduate ending.

3) Nosferatu - Shadow Scene

2) Rope - Clearing the Table

Another that won't embed. But if you don't know the story of the film... two guys kill a third and then invite guests over to a dinner party while the body is stuffed into a chest/trunk. To top it off, they decide to serve dinner off of the trunk. I have to link the whole movie, but the scene here starts at exactly 50 minutes and ends about 52:10. Click here.

1) Great Dictator - Globe Scene

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

We've taken a look at the quiet moments, so how bout a little bit of the ol' ultraviolence?

TOP 5 VIOLENT SCENES

Honorable Mention: Death by Stereo - The Lost Boys

Embedding disabled. Click here.

5) Carlito's Way - Escalator Shoot-Out/Final Scene

Yet another failed embed. Click here. WARNING: Spoilers.

4) The Good The Bad The Weird - Town Battle

I couldn't find the entire scene, but here's a version that is severely edited down. It'll give you a general idea, though.

3) Drunken Master - Any Fight

Really, anything would do... so I just chose this.

2) Dead Alive - The Climax

Of course, I mean practically the last 15-20 minutes of the film. But if I had to choose one scene to show you... it would be this one. Warning: There's... um... blood. And stuff.

1) Saving Private Ryan - First 20 Minutes

Of course I can't share the entire opening with you. But here's a snippet:

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

And what about a little humor to lighten things up?

TOP 5 COMICAL SCENES

Honorable Mention: French Connection - On/Off Train

Only because I don't think it was meant to be funny. Click here.

5) The Lost Boys - Shirtless Sax Guy

Totally. Click here.

4) Annie Hall - Theater Scene

3) Kentucky Fried Movie - Court Scene

There were a number of great skits in this movie, but this one had to be my favorite. You know I love puns.

2) Singin' in the Rain - Make 'Em Laugh

1) Monty Python - Guards Scene

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

Now that we've taken a look at stuff on screen, what about some stuff behind?

TOP 5 SOUNDTRACKS/SCORES

5) Boogie Nights

I mostly added this because I needed a fifth spot. But there are some excellent uses of music in this film, particularly near the end with... this scene.

4) 2001: A Space Odyssey

Despite my feelings to the movie as a whole, you can't deny it has one hell of a score. This score is famously used for a reason.

3) A Clockwork Orange

Of course, almost all of it is Beethoven (and/or classical music). There's also the famous "Singin' in the Rain" scene, too. But here's an example of how music was used rather well in the film. Click here.

2) The Untouchables

It was actually the soundtrack that made me love this film as much as I did. So there's that.

1) Dazed and Confused

I'm not even going to bother linking anything. Just look at these artists that appear on this soundtrack: Aerosmith, Deep Purple, Alice Cooper, War, Bob Dylan, Foghat, Black Sabbath, ZZ Top, KISS, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and MORE. It's epically awesome.

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

A few easy ones here... I wanted to just quickly take a look at the months as a whole.

What was my most memorable month? Hands down, it has to be June (WTF Month). I also dubbed this 'rape month' as practically every movie (sans one, I believe) involved rape. Out of all the things that happened this year on this list, there will be 2 things I'll remember. 2001: A Space Odyssey, and this month.

But if that's the most memorable, then what's my favorite? Another easy one, and probably to no surprise... October (Horror Month). I had a lot of fun this month and blasted through all the movies super fast. Not to mention, it gave us one of my best reviews that I've ever done.

Finally, the tough one. What was my least favorite month? This one took a lot of thought, but it actually came down to a pseudo-tie. August and September (Crime Months 1 and 2). While I did really enjoy some of these films, these two months together were long and painful (that's what she said?). It was almost 38 hours total of crime movies. Yikes.

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

And now, to wrap things up... let's look at the Top 10 Favorites. Now, I have this split into specific orders. I kept up with 3 lists--The ORIGINAL List, wherein I just used the original 60 films; the EXTRAS List, wherein I just used the extra 40 added; and the COMBO List, where I mixed all 100 films together. First, here are my Top 10 Favorite ORIGINALS.

TOP 10 FAVORITES - ORIGINAL LIST

10) Rope
9) Rear Window
8) City of God
7) Saving Private Ryan
6) The Shining
5) Gone with the Wind
4) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
3) North by Northwest
2) Annie Hall
1) Seven Samurai

TOP 10 FAVORITES - EXTRAS

10) Mother
9) Laura
8) The Birds
7) The Untouchables
6) Dead Alive
5) The Good, The Bad, The Weird
4) Life is Beautiful
3) Boogie Nights
2) Drunken Master
1) The Sting

And, finally, here are the Top 100 films, in order, from least favorite to favorite. I've also included which films fell under which ratings (Note: For the movies with odd ratings, like WTF or A Hot Mess, I mixed them into a rating spot I felt appropriate).

TOP 100 - COMBO

(Gone from Suck to Blow)

100) Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom

(The Zed Word)

99) Eraserhead
98) Plan 9 From Outer Space
97) M

(Feed Me, Seymour)

96) 2001: A Space Odyssey
95) The Killing
94) Casino
93) I Spit On Your Grave
92) Cannibal Holocaust

(Stop Saying OK! OK.)

91) The French Connection
90) The Quick and the Dead
89) The Hot Rock
88) Visitor Q
87) Close Encounters of the Third Kind
86) Black Hawk Down
85) The Godfather Part III
84) A Streetcar Named Desire
83) Brazil
82) Catch-22
81) The Producers
80) Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb
79) Irreversible
78) Stripes
77) Carlito's Way
76) Vertigo
75) Brokeback Mountain
74) Nosferatu
73) Rumble in the Bronx

(I Am McLovin)

72) Westworld
71) The Kentucky Fried Movie
70) The Apartment
69) The Maltese Falcon
68) Easy Rider
67) Scarface (1983)
66) Shark Attack 3
65) Harvey
64) Les Diabolique
63) Psycho
62) Freaks
61) Repulsion
60) Chinatown
59) The Crying Game
58) Network
57) Strangers on a Train
56) The Changeling
55) The Graduate
54) The Lost Boys
53) Murder on the Orient Express
52) Braveheart
51) The Seventh Seal
50) Haute Tension
49) Dazed and Confused
48) The Lives of Others
47) The Godfather Part II
46) Primal Fear
45) Swingers

(A Keanu 'Whoa')

44) Unforgiven
43) Platoon
42) The Counterfeiters
41) Bonnie and Clyde
40) Lady Vengeance
39) Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
38) Mother
37) The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
36) Schindler's List
35) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
34) Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
33) Casablanca
32) Laura
31) Citizen Kane
30) Heat
29) Goodfellas
28) Troll 2
27) Lawrence of Arabia
26) The Goonies
25) The Birds
24) A Clockwork Orange
23) The Great Dictator
22) Monty Python and the Holy Grail

(Royale with Cheese)

21) The Pianist
20) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
19) The Untouchables
18) Cool Hand Luke
17) Singin' in the Rain
16) Dead Alive
15) The Good, The Bad, The Weird
14) Life Is Beautiful
13) Rope
12) Rear Window
11) Saving Private Ryan
10) City of God
9) Boogie Nights
8) The Shining
7) Gone With The Wind
6) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
5) North by Northwest
4) Annie Hall
3) Drunken Master
2) Seven Samurai
1) The Sting*

*Final Note: I put this list together as I went along the project. As blown away as I was by The Sting, I can't for the life of me remember almost any of it anymore. So I can't honestly say it would top the entire project list until I was able to see it again. However, the other five behind it definitely stay in that order. So take it as you will.

60/60 Thoughts: Part 1 (Stats).

2011-12-29T00:01:00.001-06:00

For the next 3 days, I'll be posting details related to the 60/60 Project, each covering its own type of information. It's been one heck of a year with this list, and I hope you enjoy what came of it. Here we go.

For Part 1, I want to discuss random statistics that you might find interesting. Let's get right into it.

I discovered that there were some directors that seemed to take over the list more than others. Of course, Hitchcock had his own month, but the others just kind of appeared scattered throughout, which was completely unplanned. The following is a list of directors that appeared more than once on this list and how many times they appeared:

Alfred Hitchcock (7)
-I found I liked him more often than not. I loved some (Rope, The Birds, Rear Window, North by Northwest), but was let down by others (Psycho, Vertigo, Strangers on a Train).

Stanley Kubrick (5)
-Boy did I gain a love-hate relationship with this guy. It's no secret that one film in particular became a running joke for the rest of this project (2001). And there were a couple I just didn't care about (Dr. Strangelove and The Killing). But, I'll be honest... there were two in particular that I did truly come out loving (The Shining and A Clockwork Orange). And I have to give the man credit--love or hate his films, I haven't been able to stop thinking about at least 2 of them. (Special Note: I'll be viewing some of his other titles in the near future, as well.)

Brian De Palma (3)
-He started off strong with me (The Untouchables), but quickly sank into the realm of "I really don't care" (Scarface and Carlito's Way).

Roman Polanski (3)
-Another case of starting off strong (The Pianist) and then sinking into something I just didn't care for (Chinatown and Repulsion). And similar to 2001, my thoughts on Chinatown received some controversial comments...

Steven Spielberg (3)
-On the reverse, though, Spielberg started off rough with me (Close Encounters) and then got excellent (Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List). And there was also yet another controversial discussion that stemmed from one of these films, as well.

Francis Ford Coppola (2)
-Same series... one I really liked (Godfather Part II)... one I didn't (Godfather Part III). Simple as that.

Terry Gilliam (2)
-Gilliam is one of those directors you either like or... really don't. I'm a big fan of 12 Monkeys, for instance. As for this list, one of them started off alright but really grew on me as the year went on (Monty Python). The other still remains rather WTF (Brazil).

George Roy Hill (2)
-Both movies (Butch Cassidy, The Sting) starred the same two fellas and... shocker... I absolutely loved both films. Big surprises of the year.

Ang Lee (2)
-Again, on the other hand, I was kinda let down by both films (Crouching Tiger and Brokeback Mountain) that this director left me with.

Sidney Lumet (2)
-The original 12 Angry Men is one of my all-time favorite movies. And I do quite enjoy some others of this director. Of his two films here, one gave me some good enjoyment (Network). The other was... it was pretty decent (Orient Express).

Mike Nichols (2)
-Prior to this project, I'd seen Closer and... REALLY didn't like it. With my rather so-so feelings towards his two films here (Catch-22 and The Graduate), I can't say I'll be going out of my way to seek out others.

Martin Scorsese (2)
-I like the dude in general. He's not a super-favorite, but I like him. I really liked one of his films here (Goodfellas)... unfortunately, I really didn't like the other (Casino).

NOTE: I found it especially interesting that of all 100 films I viewed for this project, there was only ONE female, and she was a co-director. That honor went to Katie Lund - Co-Director City of God, one of my favorites of the year.

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

But how about in front of the camera? When it comes to actors, I'm going to be looking at the ones that appeared more the twice throughout the year. Why? Because it turns out there were a LOT that appeared at least twice... even some really random people. So here's a list of those that showed up three or more times. Some are kind of surprising.

Robert De Niro (6)
-Funny how the bulk of his appearances were in the same 2-month span (Godfather Part II, The Untouchables, Goodfellas, Casino, Heat), but there was one that was much earlier in the year (Brazil). And you know what? I enjoyed him quite a bit each and every time.

Al Pacino (5)
-Almost the exact same thing could be said of this actor; Hell, they intersected for a couple of the movies (Godfather Part II, Heat). The others (Scarface, Godfather Part III, Carlito's Way) I didn't particularly care for... but I did love his performance each time.

Gene Hackman (4)
-This was the biggest surprise to me. Unfortunately, I only liked one of the movies (Bonnie and Clyde). The others (Unforgiven, The French Connection, The Quick and the Dead)... I really didn't care for. And I can't say he himself particularly blew me away, either. He was fine, particularly in French Connection, but I could take him or leave him.

Jack Nicholson (4)
-While there were two I didn't really care for (Chinatown, Easy Rider), there were two I totally loved (The Shining, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). But no matter what I think about the films, his performances, especially in the latter two, were fantastic.

Jimmy Stewart (4)
-I was surprised that he kept turning up, but it was always a complete delight, even if I didn't care for the overall movie (Vertigo, Harvey). On the other hand, there were two I really dug quite a bit (Rope, Rear Window). Funnily enough, I kept reading how Hitchcock (and his audiences) always felt he was miscast, particularly blaming the initial failure of Vertigo on him... to the point he refused to ever work with him again.

Martin Balsam (3)
-He'll always be the foreman in 12 Angry Men to me, but it was nice seeing him show up a few times this year (Psycho, Orient Express, and Catch-22)... even though my feelings on each movie as a whole was only so-so.

Faye Dunaway (3)
-I know she had big roles in all three (Chinatown, Network, Bonnie and Clyde), but I only really remember her performance in the last. Of course, she's really good, but she never super-excited me.

Diane Keaton (3)
-The same could be said here with her three (Godfather Part II, Godfather Part III, and Annie Hall). Two of those are excellent--I'm sure you could figure out which. One of them is actually one of my favorites of the year. I'll give you a hint. She plays the titular character.

Peter Lorre (3)
-His voice alone is enough to make you love this guy. He was my favorite part of all three films he was in (M, Casablanca, and The Maltese Falcon).

Paul Newman (3)
-One of my two favorite actors this year. A hint on the other... Newman shared two of his three movies (Butch Cassidy, The Sting, Cool Hand Luke) with him. There's no surprise to me that one of these films is in my Top 10, and the other two barely missed it.

Anthony Perkins (3)
-Another shocker that showed up in more than the obvious (Psycho). But his appearances in the others (Catch-22, Orient Express) were fine. His best, though, was the first.

Robert Redford (3)
-He comes in second due to a lackluster film (The Hot Rock)... but otherwise, See: Paul Newman.

Tom Sizemore (3)
-This one came out of left field for me. Even looking back at the three (Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, Heat), I can't remember his characters, much less performances... so no comment.

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

Next, I'll say how many films I saw from each decade.

20s (1) - Nosferatu

30s (3) - Gone with the Wind, M, Freaks

40s (6) - The Great Dictator, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Laura, Rope, Maltese Falcon

50s (12) - Plan 9, Seven Samurai, Harvey, Les Diabolique, Vertigo, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, The Killing, The Seventh Seal, A Streetcar Named Desire, Singin in the Rain

60s (14) - Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Good/Bad/Ugly, The Apartment, Dr. Strangelove, The Producers, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Repulsion, Psycho, The Birds, Easy Rider, Cool Hand Luke, Bonnie and Clyde, Lawrence of Arabia, The Graduate

70s (20) - Close Encounters, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Westworld, Drunken Master, Monty Python/Holy Grail, Kentucky Fried Movie, The Sting, Network, Annie Hall, Catch-22, Eraserhead, Salo, A Clockwork Orange, I Spit on Your Grave, The French Connection, Chinatown, The Hot Rock, Orient Express, The Godfather Part II, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

80s (9) - Brazil, Stripes, Platoon, Cannibal Holocaust, The Untouchables, The Lost Boys, The Shining, The Changeling, The Goonies

90s (21) - Unforgiven, Quick and the Dead, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Rumble in the Bronx, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, The Pianist, Life is Beautiful, The Crying Game, Primal Fear, Heat, Goodfellas, Carlito's Way, Casino, The Godfather Part III, Troll 2, Dead Alive, Boogie Nights, Dazed and Confused, Swingers

00s (13) - Good/Bad/Weird, Crouching Tiger, Mother, Lady Vengeance, Black Hawk Down, The Counterfeiters, Haute Tension, Visitor Q, Irreversible, Shark Attack 3, City of God, Brokeback Mountain, The Lives of Others

Note: Funny how the majority of the films on a list about classics came from the 90s. Granted... not all of them were particularly all that great. So while we're on that subject... just for fun, which was my favorite decade and least favorite decade? Well, funnily enough, each decade has its ups and downs... but I'd say the 70s is equally my favorite and least favorite decade.

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

Going along the same lines... let's take a look at how many films I gave particular ratings. Remember, this is out of 100 films.

Royale with Cheese - 21
A Keanu 'Whoa' - 23
I Am McLovin - 27
Stop Saying OK! OK. - 16
Feed Me, Seymour - 4
The Zed Word - 2
She's Gone From Suck to Blow - 1
A Hot Mess - 2
WTF - 4

NOTE: The films for each rating will be revealed tomorrow.

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

Here are the movies from the list I now own. Now, there are two categories here. The first is for movies I actually had to purchase (or have someone send me a copy of) in order to even watch it in the first place:

-Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
-The Great Dictator
-Strangers on a Train

And this category is for the movies that I loved and now own because of that:

-The Good, The Bad, The Weird
-A Clockwork Orange
-The Shining
-North by Northwest

I'm sure there will at least be a few more added to this second list when I get around to it, as there are a handful I'd like to own. But as for now, that's what I got.

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

Finally, let's do some TIME.

The longest month, clocking in at 19 Hours and 6 Minutes - August (Crime Month - Part 1). In second place with 18 Hours, 49 Minutes was September (Crime Month - Part 2). How coincidental.

The shortest month, clocking in at 5 Hours and 29 Minutes - November 2010 (Space/Sci-Fi Month). The first month I started. But I figure only because I hadn't started doing "Extras" yet, and I started a week late. So the runner-up in this category would be, ironically, the last month - December 2011 (What's Left - Light), with 10 Hours and 50 Minutes.

So, ladies and gentlemen... after adding up all the running times of all the movies I watched for this project... the final time count for the project is...

202 Hours and 34 Minutes. That is 8 Days, 10 Hours, and 34 Minutes. Now that's a long time of straight movie-watching!

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

Alrighty guys and gals. Stay tuned tomorrow when you'll get a bunch of lists, favorites, and least favorites of things!

60/60 Review #60: One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

2011-12-28T00:01:00.000-06:00

Honestly, the worst way to end the 60/60 list would have been to end with a movie I felt 'blah' about. Fortunately, we're ending on a good note. McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) ends up being transferred to a mental institution so they can assess whether or not he's crazy or just dangerous. While there, he plays a psychological battle against Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), trying to get under her skin. The other inmates are played by people such as Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd, Brad Dourif, Will Sampson, Michael Berryman, and more. And my main man Scatman Crothers shows up as an orderly, as well.

I honestly didn't think I was going to enjoy this movie as much as I did. I was hoping to like it, but I came out really loving it. First of all, it has a fantastic pacing. There's never a dull moment, and I found myself wondering what was going to happen next. It kept me on my toes, which I really liked.

The acting was phenomenal, too. Of course Nicholson was excellent--this was his first Oscar win. One scene that particularly showed off his skills was probably one of the quietest scenes in the movie. It's closer to the end, and Nicholson sits down. The camera closes in on his face... and just stays there. Nicholson goes through a range of emotions, never making a noise, and all you can think about is what is going through this guy's head right now. It's a fantastic moment in the movie. And Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched is great. I know the comparison I'm about to make came later, but I experienced it first, so it works... but she reminds me a lot of Umbridge from Harry Potter (funnily enough, I re-watched Order of the Phoenix the same night I watched this). She seems nice and like she just wants to do what's right, but there's something not quite right, and you slowly realize that she's actually rather deranged. It really shows in the fact that by the end of the film, Nicholson has done more for the patients than she ever has, but she drags them back down and derails everything.

The best stuff comes from the relationships between the characters. The Chief was my favorite, of course, and the slow friendship McMurphy builds with him is excellent (and inevitably heartbreaking). I really appreciated this film from the character level and how they all worked off of each other and grew. I made a Harry Potter comparison already, but another comparison this made me think of was Chan-wook Park's I'm A Cyborg, But That's OK, where it seems the main guy is doing more for these patients than the staff, and you question who really are the insane ones.

It's a movie that has some good laughs, and it doesn't get too heavy and depressing that it drags you down. Well, it gets a bit serious near the end, but maybe for only about 5 minutes. Then it has a high note ending (sorta). I couldn't say I would watch it all the time, but it's definitely one I would like to revisit every now and then. The characters and their situation was just far too engaging for me to feel otherwise. If you have yet to see it, definitely check it out, especially if you enjoy mental hospital-type movies. It's excellent.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. That's it, folks! That wraps up the 60/60 Project! As for this particular month, it was interesting. The last couple were the best, which is funny considering it was usually the opposite every other month of the year. But alas. Keep an eye out over the next few days as I post some fun stats, lists, and other information that I've put together for the project! See you then.)

The Vlog - Season 4 Trailer.

2011-12-27T00:01:00.001-06:00

It's that time again, ladies and gents! That's right, The Vlog is coming back. So you know what that means? We need a trailer! And I have one for you, ready to go. I said when I first started writing for this season that it was either going to be the greatest season possible or a complete disaster. Here's hoping for the former. I will say, though, that so far it's been the most complicated to put together. Anyway, you really don't get much plot from this trailer, but you do get some wacky antics. Unfortunately, it has part of a song that almost no video uploading site will let me use, so I was stuck with Vimeo.

I hope y'all enjoy it, and let me know what you think!

The Vlog - Season 4 Trailer. from Nicholas Jobe on Vimeo.

Musical Monday: The Little Mermaid - Poor Unfortunate Souls (#1).

2011-12-26T00:01:00.000-06:00

The Demented Podcast #30 - Battle Royale 3.

2011-12-24T13:30:00.000-06:00

Here y'all go! I'm giving you the episode a week early. Happy Holidays to all. Anyway, this is the Battle Royale, where the Top 5 (available) Tower players of the season compete for ultimate glory. The BRs are always a blast to record, despite taking a while. For instance, this particular episode took about 2 hours and 15 minutes to get through, and I was able to cut it down quite a bit. Don't worry, you're not missing much from what I cut. Anyway, we have Joel, Dan, Dylan, Kai, and Jason. Can Joel keep his King of the Tower? Or will Dan show who's really the boss? But watch out for Dylan--he's a great player himself. Can Kai make it past the first round this time? Or will Jason, the underdog, prove that he has what it takes? Listen to find out!

Current Tower Leaderboard
1) Joel - 191 Points
2) Dan - 164 Points
3) Dylan - 146 Points
4) Steve - 133 Points
5) Tom - 105 Points
6) Kai - 103 Points
7) Jason - 101 Points
8) Scott - 97 Points
9) Alan - 86 Points

Current/Previous Battle Royale Champions
(BR2) Dylan Fields - 114 Points
(BR1) Rachel Thuro - 171 Points

You can listen to this episode on the player below or by subscribing through iTunes.

HUGO.

2011-12-22T00:01:00.000-06:00

So, before anyone else had even heard of this movie, it was one of my most anticipated of the year. Then people started hearing of it and began anticipating it, too. Then the trailer came out... and what a piece of crap that was. It went from in my Top 3 most anticipated to not even in my Top 10. It just looked abysmal and Oh-My-God-What-Is-Scorsese-Doing? But then the reviews started coming in, and most people declared it one of the best of the year. I became confused. So when the film landed in my town for basically a week-long run, I knew I had to check it out before it was too late. And what did it end up being? A very difficult film to talk about.

On the surface, the film starts off as one thing but then turns into something completely different about halfway through. We meet Hugo (Asa Butterfield), an orphan who lives in the walls of a Parisian train station and fixes clocks. One day, he's caught thieving by a toy shop owner, Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley), and he takes a journal that belongs to Hugo. The journal belonged to Hugo's father (Jude Law) and told how he could continue fixing an automaton. Hugo befriends Georges' Goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Moretz), in an attempt to get the journal back. But in this process, he begins to discover the secrets behind the automaton and its connection to Georges, as well as Georges' secret past. Meanwhile, Hugo must stay out of sight from the Station Inspector (Sasha Baron Cohen), who would quickly snatch him up and send him to the orphanage. The film also co-stars Ray Winstone, Emily Mortimer, Christopher Lee, Helen McCrory, Frances de la Tour, and Richard Griffiths (yup... three Harry Potter alums!).

The film is very beautiful to watch. It gives off a magical appearance, like a whole new world exists within the walls of the Parisian train station. And it's rather fitting, as the movie as a whole is about embracing the magic of imagination. There is a lot of love given to cinema in this film, as movies play a large role in (the latter half of) the film.

But here's the problem I had with the movie... I just couldn't get absorbed by it all. It looked magical and beautiful. There was a solid mystery. The characters were good. Everything about this was completely solid film-making. But for some reason, none of that was getting my investment. I wasn't bored, though I did (ironically) look at my watch twice. The first time was a little over an hour in, and it felt like it had at least been thirty minutes longer than that.

I've thought about why this could be. I believe I've come to the conclusion that I was caught off guard; I wasn't watching what I thought I was supposed to be watching. The film was advertised as more of a whimsical kids movie about a kid who lives in clock towers and has adventures with a girl he befriends, mostly centered around a wacky station inspector and a mysterious robot. What it actually is... is a sad movie about losing everything you held dear, whether that be your parents, your leg, your love, your brother, or your life dream, and coping with it as best you can on a day-to-day basis. Every character in this movie (with the exception of Griffiths and de la Tour) lost something dear to them and live with a sadness behind their eyes. The aforementioned two just struggle to be with each other due to a minor complication.

In the end, there is a strong message of "never give up and always follow your heart." And everybody portrays that message greatly in their own little story. Even Sasha Baron Cohen moves beyond being a flat villain and has an arch of his own to overcome, and it's one of his best acting performances. Ben Kingsley also gives a very strong performance, as well (which is good considering the film is really about him).

I know I probably sounded very negative in this review, but I honestly still really liked the film. It wasn't anything like I expected, either in plot or in tone, but Scorsese still managed to show his chops in this lighter fare. Pay no attention to the terrible trailers. This film is much more than anything you've seen advertised. It has strong themes and is, as many have already said, a love song to following your dreams, to discovering the magic of imagination, and to viewing and appreciating film itself.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

60/60 Review #59: Singin' In The Rain.

2011-12-21T00:01:00.002-06:00

I've always known the titular song, even as a kid, but I've never really known what the film was about. And to be honest, I'm not sure I would have appreciated the subject matter as a kid as much as I would have now. Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) are two of the biggest stars of silent cinema. Unfortunately, "talkies" are starting to take over Hollywood... and Lina has the voice of dying cats. But maybe with a little help from his best friend Cosmo (Donald O'Connor) and love interest Kathy (Debbie Reynolds), they can figure out how to get through it.

I would ask anyone to try watching this movie and not smile at least once. It's a fun, joyous movie full of great laughs and cheer. The movie wasn't even halfway over and I found myself wanting to take up tap dancing lessons. Gene Kelly, and the others, were fun to watch just dancing along. Though personally, I think Donald O'Connor stole the show as Cosmo. His wit and physical humor was fantastic.

And I was surprised at how much wit the movie has in general. Typically movies of this time period are over-the-top and sometimes a bit silly in the acting. But this one felt as if it were in on the joke. With only a couple exceptions, it appeared like a modern film that was emulating something from the times, paying homage, and doing a damn fine job of it. There were a handful of meta moments, but it really was the sharp writing and wit that kept me involved.

If I were to have any negatives... ironically, it would be with the musical aspect of the film. I didn't like at least a third of the songs, though most of the time that fact was made up by some fun dancing. However, there were two numbers in the film that made the movie nearly come screeching to a halt. The first would be my least favorite scene, which is the Beautiful Girls number. I know it's there to reintroduce Kathy, but that one was really painful. The second is the Broadway Melody scene near the end. This one is kind of twofold. On the one hand, the dancing and the Cyd Charisse stuff looked amazing. There was some fantastic choreography and cinematography (like the white dress/long fabric part). On the other, the song isn't that great... and it goes on... and on... and on... and on. For a while, I thought it was never going to end. Minor side-note--although Donald O'Connor is fantastic, Make 'Em Laugh went on about 20 seconds too long (the bit right before he jumps around off the walls didn't need to be there).

There's really little else to say. The dancing is fun and the comedy is great. For it being a musical, though, I didn't care for a handful of the songs. Still, it was a fun time, and on the whole, it was a very smart, well written, and well performed film.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. I know that's my best rating... and although I found a few issues with it, I couldn't give it a rating below this. So I guess consider this at the lower end of scale. But the love is still there.)

60/60 Extra: Swingers.

2011-12-20T00:01:00.000-06:00

A couple years ago I saw another Favreau/Vaughn film called Made, and I thought it was hilarious. I was continually told that they're even better in Swingers. But do I agree with that? The film follows Mike (Jon Favreau), who has recently broken up with his girlfriend of 6 years and moved across the country to L.A. There, with the help of friends Trent (Vince Vaughn), Rob (Ron Livingston), and Sue (Patrick Van Horn), he tries to get over her and move on with his life.

To be honest, it wasn't until about the halfway point that I "got" the movie. It was around the time of the Scorsese/Tarantino conversation (and then subsequent slow-mo walk). There is some fantastic meta stuff in this movie. But besides getting into the film based on the meta stuff, it took me a while to realize the whole point to the movie.

At first I was wondering what the point was. Frankly, I was kind of bored after a while with the film seemingly going nowhere. It was party after party, random conversation after random conversation. But when I picked up on the notion that the film was basically a study of love in its different forms, it made more sense. Mike had the painful loss of love and the awkward stance of moving on. Trent is a sad, pathetic individual who puts on a self-entitled smooth exterior. And Rob is in between, sympathizing with both sides. And all three are rather pathetic as failed actors/entertainers just trying to make it in the business they love. The film itself is like a love letter to film, as shown through the more meta moments.

The acting was good all around. Favreau was good at being awkward, depressed, and desperate. The "phone call" scene started funny... but then got painful and sad and you couldn't help but cringe and feel bad for the guy (while at the same time wanting to shake him). Livingston was good at being the friend, though there wasn't much beyond that with him. And then, of course, Vaughn did what he does best--acts annoying and never shuts up.

Due to the fact that I didn't really start liking it until about halfway through, I might eventually need to give it another watch at some point. But I can tell you that my enjoyment of it did slowly rise as the film went on. I wasn't in love with it at the end, but by the time it was over... I did feel that it was pretty money, baby.

I Am McLovin!

Musical Monday: Moulin Rouge! - El Tango De Roxanne (#2).

2011-12-19T00:01:00.002-06:00

The Demented Podcast #29 - We Re-Imagine Stuff.

2011-12-17T00:01:00.001-06:00

It's the final episode before the next Battle Royale, and this time we're joined by Kai Parker of Man, I Love Films. We have a hell of a fun time reading a bunch of comments and giving Joel complements. Then we have an even more fun time as we discuss time travel movies with Time After Time and Timecrimes. Then it's time to move on to The Tower. Can Kai add himself to the ranks and enter the Battle Royale? Listen and find out!

Current Tower Leaderboard
1) Joel - 191 Points
2) Dan - 164 Points
3) Dylan - 146 Points
4) Steve - 133 Points
5) Tom - 105 Points
6) Jason - 101 Points
7) Scott - 97 Points
8) Alan - 86 Points

Current/Previous Battle Royale Champions
(BR2) Dylan Fields - 114 Points
(BR1) Rachel Thuro - 171 Points

You can listen to this episode on the player below or by subscribing through iTunes.

60/60 Review #58: The Graduate.

2011-12-14T00:01:00.000-06:00

Well, this film has helped me discover one or two things I'm not particularly a fan of. I've seen 2 films from director Mike Nichols prior to this one. Earlier this year, I caught Catch-22 (no pun intended); it's a favorite book of mine... not so good of a movie. And a while back, I saw Closer... which I was totally not a fan of. But The Graduate is a super-classic, and it's almost film-fan suicide to dislike it. So... did I?

If you're unaware, the film is about recent college grad Ben (Dustin Hoffman) who is seduced by a friend of his parents, Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft). Ben is shy and totally against it at first, but eventually gives into the affair. Unfortunately, it leads to a relationship with her daughter, Elaine (Katharine Ross), which neither parent approves of.

There were some things I liked about the movie and some things I didn't. Let's start with the negative so we can end on a more positive note. First of all, I found myself having trouble liking... any... of the characters. Ben was a pushover at first, and then he turns more reckless and a little crazy. Mrs. Robinson is just a crazy word-I-won't-say. And Elaine is the type who would tell two different guys she would marry them (though unsure) after pretty much one date each. Don't get me wrong, it was great acting all around... but my main focus? Realizing that Dustin Hoffman's dad in the movie is Mr. Feeny!

I also realized that I'm apparently not a fan of Simon and Garfunkel. I was not a fan of the music of this film at all. In fact, it drove me kind of crazy. Normally I can deal with it, but when they just play the same songs over and over and over, it gets a bit grating.

Somewhere in the middle between like and dislike is the climax and ending. The climax is just insane and feels marginally unrealistic. It was just a bit cartoonish. But the actual ending and the ambiguity of it all was good. I also appreciated the fact that Ben (SPOILER) apparently can't stay away from married women (END SPOILER).

What did I like, though? I loved the camera work. The movie found so many brilliant angles and spots to place the camera, giving us some fantastic moments. And not only the camera work, but the way things were edited together, too (like transitions between scenes that seemed to be fluid and single takes). You see that kind of stuff all the time now, but it was probably rather innovative back then. So basically, all the technical visuals of the film were a real treat. It was totally my favorite part of the movie.

Despite the mostly negative review, I didn't hate the movie. I just didn't love it. I had a hard time getting into it past the camera stuff. Hoffman's performance was great, but after the first 45 or so minutes, his personality shifts into something a little less relatable. Really, it's a masterfully made film. I just had problems getting into it, more for personal taste reasons than anything else.

I Am McLovin!

60/60 Extra: Dazed And Confused.

2011-12-13T00:01:00.000-06:00

I've said in the past that I'm not one to love movies with little plot. I typically need something that pulls the story along, and it can't just be a "day in the life" kind of thing... which is precisely what Dazed and Confused is. But did this one break that mold? The film takes place on the last day of school in May 1976. The main conflicts include Pink (Jason London) not wanting to sign a form for football that means he can't drink or do drugs; a kid named Mitch (Wiley Wiggins) who is moving into his freshman year of high school and is trying to avoid the seniors, but ends up hanging out with them all night; and Mike (Adam Goldberg), Tony (Anthony Rapp), and Cynthia (Marissa Ribisi), who question their inclusion in life as they know it. The film also co-stars Rory Cochran, Joey Lauren Adams, Milla Jovovich, Cole Hauser, Ben Affleck, Parker Posey, Matthew McConaughey, and a bunch of people that didn't really become famous.

While I was still moderately bothered with the fact that essentially nothing happens during the hour and 45 minute time span, I still liked the really liked the movie. A lot of the characters come in and out of the story, some more important than others. I do think that there were a handful of unnecessary characters that bogged down the film a little bit, and it could have been slightly more focused in its unfocused...ness.

The acting was solid all around. The iffiest was probably Wiley Wiggins, but I gave that a pass considering he had the most interesting story to me. But on the whole, it's good that the acting held up, as movies like this rely on the actors since there is no real story to drive the film. However, the other best thing that drives this film is the soundtrack. I recently had a discussion with one Kai Parker who declared that this film had one of the best soundtracks ever. Now that I've seen the film, I have to agree. I really loved the soundtrack, and it held the movie together as if it were a character in and of itself. I feel the music was really at the heart of this film.

In the end, it's hard for me to say how I really feel about the movie. It was fun and charming, but the lack of cohesion makes it not my cup of tea. So while I did end up liking it quite a bit, it's not one I can say I would be revisiting over and over. However, I might just have to get the soundtrack, because that is something I could check out frequently. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative or trying to discourage anyone from this film. It's actually really well done. It's just, again, not my favorite type of movie.

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. For the record, I had a tough time choosing between this and a Keanu 'Whoa'. So, needless to say, this is on the higher end of this rating.)

Musical Monday: Little Shop of Horrors (TIE) - Feed Me & Mean Green Mother From Outer Space (#3).

2011-12-12T00:01:00.001-06:00

[Every Monday, I'm going to be counting down my 52 favorite musical numbers from musical movies and TV shows. I might not like the full movie/show, but the number makes the list for various reasons: 1) I have to like the song, 2) the visual of how the number is performed is most likely unique or fun, 3) both song and visual mixes well to create an exciting or powerful number. So let's get to the next on the list.]

We all know that one of my favorite movies of all time is the 1986 musical version of Little Shop of Horrors. Needless to say, it was very difficult choosing which songs to put on this list. When it came down to it, I had to put a tie for third. And there's really no surprise either that both are essentially "villain" songs.

The first is "Feed Me (Git It)," the song that Audrey II and Seymour sing when Audrey II first starts speaking. It's a "Devil on the Shoulder" type song, with the plant talking the good-natured Seymour into committing murder in order to feed it. Not only is the song great and catchy, but the camera work and blocking is great. Seymour is excited at the beginning and is, thus, close to the plant. Then the plant says what it wants, and for the bulk of the rest of the song, Seymour is on the opposite end of the room (unless Audrey II forces him closer). It's not until the breaking point when he finally makes Seymour snap that he gets closer to the plant once again--almost too close--showing they are finally in the same mindset.

Then there's the finale song, Mean Green Mother From Outer Space. This song is actually absent from the stage version, written especially for the film version. It's the showdown between Seymour and Audrey II, where the plant reveals everything and what it's really there to do. It's a David and Goliath battle that David was originally supposed to lose. And it's also one of the freakiest and most menacing songs on this list. I also love the short segment where Audrey II references other monster/alien movies. And it also has some outstanding puppetry and practical work going on here. Anyway, here you go!

60/60 Review #57: The Goonies.

2011-12-07T00:01:00.001-06:00

This is one of those films I'm upset at myself for not having seen as a child. It's basically the perfect kid's adventure film... but does it hold up for an adult seeing it for the first time? The basic idea is that an entire living area is being demolished to expand a country club (or something), and a group of friends stumble upon an old treasure map and start an adventure in order to get the money to save their home. You got Mikey (Sean Astin) and his older brother, Brand (Josh Brolin). Then there's Mikey's clumsy, gluttonous, fibbing friend Chunk (Jeff Cohen). There's also big talker Mouth (Corey Feldman), inventor Data (Ke Huy Quan), and Brand's friends Stef (Martha Plimpton) and Andy (Kerri Green). Unfortunately, in getting to the treasure, they run across escaped convicts, Jake (Robert Davi), Francis (Joe Pantoliano), Mama (Anne Ramsey), and the deformed Sloth (John Matuszak).

On the positive side, like I said, it really is a perfect adventure film for kids (ironically, another on the list could be Temple of Doom, which also co-stars Ke Huy Quan). It's fun, has kids doing crazy things, and it isn't dumbed down. The kids cuss, the danger is (mostly) realistic, and there's a great mystical element to it, yet still steeped in moderate reality. In other words, it's quite a blast.

On the negative side, its flaws are equally blatant. First and foremost, there is an insane amount of product placement. In the first half of the film, there's probably a Pepsi or Pepsi symbol in every single scene. Then director Richard Donner makes a connection to his earlier film, Superman (which wouldn't have been as obvious with a different director and without the previous advertisements strewn through the film). Then you have the characters that are a little too over-the-top or bothersome in one way or another. Data makes huge faces and movements to every little thing. Chunk is just kind of annoying in the "never shuts up" kind of way, though I know that's his character. Finally, Data's inventions are a bit too cartoonish and unrealistic in an otherwise more "realistic" film. They just felt out of place.

There was a lot of talent behind this film, as well. Besides an outstanding cast, the people behind the scenes are excellent. It's directed by Richard Donner, based on a story by Steven Spielberg, and written by Chris Columbus. Though at the same time, with Spielberg and Columbus' involvement, it shouldn't have been surprising how cheesy and sappy the ending was. And... it really was.

But that's not to say I didn't enjoy the film. Quite the opposite, really. My negative feelings didn't detract from the whole thing. I know I've talked a lot of negative in this review, but I did really, really like the movie. Like I said at the beginning, this is a movie I'm sad I didn't become acquainted with as a kid. As a kid, I would have eaten this up and then the nostalgic factor today would let me see past all the issues (at least for the most part). But I didn't, so it's only just really good to me instead of really great.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

MELANCHOLIA.

2011-12-06T00:01:00.001-06:00

I've only ever seen 3 things from Lars von Trier prior to this. First was the television mini-series Kingdom Hospital, which I enjoyed from what I remember, but never realized was a von Trier production. Second was Dancer in the Dark, which--against popular opinion--I couldn't stand. Then there was Antichrist, which despite seeing at least a year or so ago, I still feel like I need a shower just thinking about it. Needless to say, I didn't care for it (understatement). So when I came across Melancholia, I was a bit hesitant to say the least. On the one hand, it has a sci-fi element where a new planet is on a collision course with Earth; on the other hand, it's all about depression and being all insane and whatnot. So what did I think?

First let's look at the plot. We have newlyweds Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) who arrive to their wedding reception. Justine tries to have a good time, but it's all a facade as she hides the sadness and/or apathy within. She also notices a strange star in the distant sky. This lasts an hour. The second hour follows Justine's sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her husband, John (Kiefer Sutherland). He's studying a new planet called Melancholia (the aforementioned 'star' that Justine saw) that is heading toward Earth and assures her they're going to be safe, but Claire is going out of her mind with fear that they're all going to die.

At a little over two hours, that doesn't seem to be enough plot to fill its length. And sure, it probably could have been cut down (particularly Justine's half of the story). But yeah, I know, it's all character studies and symbolism and everything. But could von Trier at least have been a little more subtle? Justine is obviously suffering from extreme depression and they name the planet Melancholia? And she basks in its light? Etc. Etc. And it's never clear if there's anything she's actually depressed about or if it's just a chemical thing. I had a theory that she's down and out because she's the only person in her family without a British accent. Poor Justine.

There are two great things about the film, though. The first is the acting. Everybody is on their game in this film, but you have to give definite props to Kirsten Dunst in what is probably one of the finest performances of her career. And thank God everybody is so good because otherwise this film wouldn't have worked at all.

The second thing great is the visuals. The film starts off with 8 minutes of super, ultra slo-mo in very sharp picture, something he also did in Antichrist. Yeah, it's a bit much and drags like no other, but at least it looks good and is kind of trippy at times. And then all the planet stuff in the second half looks phenomenal. The cinematography in general is pretty dang good.

Overall, this is not a film for everyone. It's one of those "it's very well made, but... I probably won't ever watch it again" kinda films. It wasn't made for entertainment purposes. It was made as an art piece. It was made to be dissected and discussed (despite its lack of subtlety). But really, there's only one striking thing I'd like to talk about if you've seen it... and it's kind of a blink and you'll miss it moment. They make note early on in the film that there are only 18 holes on this golf course. At the end, she walks by a flag that says "19." I wonder what that means. Anyway, that's all I have for this. If you're a von Trier fan, I suppose you'll like this if you haven't seen it already. If you like more artistic or thoughtful films, you'll dig it. But if you like your movies for entertainment purposes only, I'd steer clear.

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. That score is more for entertainment. If I were to score it based on quality of filmmaking, it would be higher. But I'm not. So it isn't.)

Musical Monday: It's Not Over Yet & Zydrate Anatomy (#5 And #4).

2011-12-05T00:01:00.002-06:00

#5: A Very Potter Sequel - It's Not Over Yet

"What? Your #5 of all time is from an internet video and not an actual movie?" To that, I say... so what? To be fair, it's a hugely popular set of plays that stars Darren Criss who is now one of the stars of Glee (take that however you will). I've said many-a-time I love villain songs, as well as opening numbers. This just happens to be both. It's super catchy, and I'll listen to this song more than any other from either play. It's that fantastic... and meta (though... the entirety of both plays are incredibly meta... but still).

#4: Repo! The Genetic Opera - Zydrate Anatomy

It's my favorite song in the movie, and it's the song that got me interested in seeing the movie in the first place. It's catchy, it's fun, and it's just plain bizarre. It's Zydrate Anatomy. Unfortunately, I can't embed this video, so you'll have to go to a link. Click here.

The Demented Podcast #28 - By Your Face, I Will Punch It.

2011-12-03T00:01:00.000-06:00

For today's episode, we were joined by Dylan Fields of Man, I Love Films to discuss 90s action/thriller/espionage films. We start off with some Robert Redford fun in Sneakers, but change gears to Luc Besson and La Femme Nikita. Ever wanted to hear "milf" and "Ben Kingsley" in the same general discussion? How about the implication that Milla Jovovich could have made a movie better? Then this episode is for you!

After the discussions, we move in to The Tower. Will Dylan join the ranks for the upcoming Battle Royale, or will he fall by the wayside? Listen to find out!

Current Tower Leaderboard
1) Joel - 191 Points
2) Dan - 164 Points
3) Steve - 133 Points
4) Tom - 105 Points
5) Jason - 101 Points
6) Scott - 97 Points
7) Alan - 86 Points

Current/Previous Battle Royale Champions
(BR2) Dylan Fields - 114 Points
(BR1) Rachel Thuro - 171 Points

You can listen to this episode on the player below or by subscribing through iTunes.

60/60 Review #56: Lawrence Of Arabia.

2011-11-30T23:01:00.000-06:00

At the start of this project, I hadn't really been acquainted with many lengthy films outside of, say, Titanic. I mean, I thought a movie was long if it was 2 or 2.5 hours. Anything over 3 was insanity. Needless to say, this project has given me quite a bit more experience with the lengthier of the art. And at roughly 3 hours and 45 minutes, Lawrence of Arabia is one of the longest films on this list (though not the longest), and I believe wraps up as the final long epic of the year... which is kind of poetic in a way, since this is considered something like the epic of all epics.

The film tells the true story of T.E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole), a British soldier who gets stationed in Arabia. He partners up with Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness) and creates a guerrilla army to fight against the Turks during World War I. He also, eventually, fights with the British again against the Ottoman Empire.

One of the most interesting things about this movie was that, despite its length, it had a pretty fine pacing. Part I of the film is slightly over the first two hours, and it moved very smoothly and quickly. I unfortunately did have to do other things as I watched (not because of the film, but because I was forced to double task... but I tried to pay as much attention as I possibly could, as it actually did interest me). I'm not sure if that had anything to do with it, or of the fact I had to watch it over the course of two nights (Part 1 on one night and Part 2 the next), but I felt similarly to this as I did with Gone With The Wind. It moved quickly, stayed interesting, had some really great cinematography, and was rather enjoyable.

I didn't enjoy everything, though. There were some aspects I didn't care for. Sometimes O'Toole's acting became a bit over-the-top and cheesy. Also, it was hard to believe that anyone could mistake him as an Arab at times, despite the fact that some clearly do. Then again, there could have been a point to that based on his actions (which I'll get to shortly). And there were a couple parts here and there that weren't as interesting to me as others. Most of them dealt with the British side of the story after the beginning.

However, I'd say one of my favorite aspects was one of the most unexpected. I don't know much about Lawrence, so I didn't realize how much of a character study it was going to be and how insane he gets. It's really a movie about this man's sanity. He goes into it rather green, though very intelligent. Then he learns their way, becomes like them, and is basically immersed in their way of life. When he returns to his home, he stays dressed in his garb from Arabia. It's not until a pivotal moment where he wants to give it up and be British again, but then finds he struggles to do so. And he goes back and you really see how much he's lost it. To be honest, this film would pair up nicely with The Hurt Locker, as I saw quite a few similarities between the two.

So I can't say that Lawrence of Arabia is for everyone, but I'm sure everyone could find something to like about it. Will I ever sit down and watch it again? Probably not. If for some reason it comes on TV and there's nothing else on and I have nothing to do, I might put it on and watch for a while. It's a spectacularly made film. Normally I say decent-sized chunks could be cut, but I'm not sure here. I know there's some that could be removed easily, but the film would still be over 3 hours long. If you like this kind of film and don't mind longer films, definitely check it out. If this isn't your cup of tea, you actually still might find something to enjoy with it, but I can't tell you to go out and watch it immediately. Really good, and I liked it much more than I thought I was going to.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. The soundtrack is excellent, too... and it took me forever to realize where I recognized the main theme from. So I looked it up and... yup, they use it for the score in the desert scenes in Spaceballs. That's a joke that makes so much more sense now.)

(P.P.S. That does it for this month! There's just one more left, guys and gals! And it should be an easy one. It's just what's left... the light stuff. First up? A movie I've been rather ashamed for quite a few years for never having seen... so it'll be great to finally check it out.

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN - PART 1.

2011-11-25T15:00:00.000-06:00

There's really only 4 reasons somebody is seeing this movie: 1) You're a fan of the series, 2) You're being dragged by a significant other who is a fan of the series, 3) You realize this series is terrible and love to laugh at it, or 4) plain morbid curiosity. As most of you know by now, I'm a mixture of the last two. In this one, Bella (Kristen Stewart) married vampire Edward (Robert Pattinson), she gets pregnant, and everyone, including werewolf Jacob (Taylor Lautner), gets in a huff because the baby starts to kill her from the inside.

Of the primary two male leads, I've always been a "Team Jacob" person. He tends to treat her well, generally respect her wishes (even if he hates them), love her unconditionally, and fight for her until the very end. Edward, on the other hand, is mopey, boring, mean, controlling, and has way too many stalker/serial killer tendencies. He really tops it off in this one, where he treats Bella as if her feelings and opinions don't matter (and then accuses her of not including him). Not to mention Bella always seems like it pains her to be with him, while she always laughs, feels good, and even says she feels "complete" with Jacob. The Edward relationship has always felt forced, and it makes Bella seem like an even worse person than she already is by treating Jacob the way she does.

Nothing in these stories makes any sense. Everything contradicts itself, and nothing these characters do is logical. And this movie, yet again, proves that all of the other characters besides the main three are far more interesting. From the rest of the Cullen siblings to Charlie to Seth to the 5 minutes of screen time we see Bella's old high school friends. They were all far more entertaining than the primary story.

The acting, however, has quite improved, especially since the first film. Kristen Stewart still needs to learn how to smile during the most important moments of her life, though. Even Edward gives a grin here and there. Surprisingly, Taylor Lautner doesn't act with his abs in this movie. Literally the first shot in this movie is him taking off his shirt, but after that... he tends to keep it on for pretty much the remainder of the film. Sorry, ladies. The one person I do want to give it up to here is Jackson Rathbone as Jasper. He might have only had about 3 minutes of screen time in this entire film (and that's stretching it), but he showed more charm and personality in those 3 minutes than he has for the past 3 films combined. Oh yeah, and Billy Burke's Charlie is still the best character in this entire thing.

What brings these films down is, of course, the writing. But you can't really blame screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, though. It all goes back to the source material. In fact, I've always said that the films are better than the books because at least you don't have to read Stephenie Meyer's terrible writing and how godly Edward's breath is every other sentence. And actually, Melissa Rosenberg tends to be in on the joke with the audience, putting in little quips here and there that make fun of the material. In the last film it was about Jacob's shirtlessness. In this one, it was toward how terrible the name Renesmee is. There was actually a surprising amount of humor in this movie, and I don't just mean the unintentional kind. I also must thank our dear screenwriter yet again for adding in an action sequence where the book skipped over it.

As for my opinion on the seemingly much-talked-about "pack mind" sequence? I'll just say it worked much better in the book. The telepathic talking between the wolves was silly, but it would have been silly no matter how they translated it onto the screen. The Jacob section of the book was arguably the best and/or only good thing in the entire 800 (or however many) pages. It didn't translate nearly as well to the screen.

Finally, I want to discuss the visuals. As usual, the CGI is rather questionable, especially Renesmee's face at the very end (what was that?). The practical effects, however, were actually quite exceptional. They finally made the vampires not look obvious, and Edward didn't look disgusting for once. So the makeup job on them was decent. The best work, however, was most likely a mix of practical and digital, making Bella look gaunt and deathly ill. It was done pretty dang well, so I must give credit where credit is due.

Was it a bad movie? It's Twilight, so there's no question. There are logical holes abound. The main characters are unlikable morons. The story goes on for far longer than they need to (Hell, the books alone could have easily been condensed into maybe 2 or 3 max, making this 2-part finale even more ridiculous than it already is). But was it entertaining? Yeah, it was. Like the previous film, it tried to actually be good for once, and at times it might have succeeded. But that also means it makes it a less entertaining Twilight film. As usual with this type of film, the following rating is based on entertainment only, not on overall quality.

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. There was a teen girl next to me who started squirming and going 'eww' when a certain character began drinking blood. This is a freakin' vampire story, girl. What the hell do you expect?)

60/60 Review #55: A Streetcar Named Desire.

2011-11-23T00:01:00.000-06:00

Oh. My. God. Shut. UP!

That's pretty much how I felt while watching this movie. Fifteen minutes in, and I figured it was going to be a long two hours. But somewhere around the 30-minute mark, things just clicked--everybody in this movie is freakin' insane. Blanche (Vivien Leigh) moves to New Orleans to stay with her sister, Stella (Kim Hunter). Unfortunately, Stella's husband, Stanley (Marlon Brando) doesn't take to liking Blanche much. She drives him crazy, and he shows his quick temper and violent side. But he's also trying to figure out why Blanche is really there and if she's keeping any secrets from them.

There is no likeable character in this movie. A guy named Mitch, who takes a liking to Blanche, comes close. But even he's knocked off his rocker by the end (though I suppose a bit understandably). Blanche is quite literally certifiably insane. On top of that, she's mean, manipulative, cruel, and doesn't even realize any of it. Within minutes of seeing her sister again, she insults her home, calls her fat, and then begs for compliments. And she never... shuts... up. And you know that's bad coming from me, considering I'm a pretty big fan of Toby Turner. Then you have Stanley, who snaps at any little thing and gets violent and abusive. Finally there's Stella, who is dumb enough to keep going back to him (I know, there's development by the end, but still).

I suppose I'll give it up to the acting. Everybody played their part incredibly well. But as I've said in the past--just because something is done well doesn't mean I have to like it. I think Brando and Leigh are deserving of any accolades they received, but I still found them to be annoying. Doesn't mean they were bad. It just means I didn't care for it.

So once I realized everybody in the movie belonged in a mental institution (and what do you know, SPOILERS, they at least partially listened to me for once), the movie was easier to handle. I just viewed it kind of like a train wreck. It's actually too bad Stanley and Blanche didn't end up falling for each other, otherwise I could have made some very poignant Twilight comparisons. Alas, they did not. So instead, I'm just left with a very well acted (though to be honest, sometimes a wee bit over-the-top) movie with totally unlikeable characters. And that's that.

Stop Saying OK! OK.

60/60 Extra: Boogie Nights.

2011-11-22T00:01:00.001-06:00

This is going to be one of those difficult reviews. Where do you even start with a movie like this? Well, I guess we can start with expectations. Paul Thomas Anderson has four major films. I've now seen three of them. I really liked There Will Be Blood, though it had its problems. I hated Magnolia, though I need to see it again. And from what I've heard, Punch-Drunk Love is a love it or hate it kind of movie, with a majority leading toward the latter. I also saw the 2.5-hour time span of this film and thought "great, another super-long drama." Fortunately, that's only partially true.

The film is about the ups and downs of the porn industry and everybody involved with it in the 70s and 80s. Leading the cast is Mark Wahlberg as Eddie Adams/Dirk Diggler, a high school drop-out who wants to make something out of himself based on the fact he has a huge... talent. He teams up with director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) and his wife(?), Amber Waves (Julianne Moore). He befriends another couple of porn stars named Reed Rothchild (John C. Reilly) and Rollergirl (Heather Graham). Also on tap are Don Cheadle, Luis Guzman, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Thomas Jane, and Alfred Molina. (And holy crap, Tom Lenk was in this? Buffy fans know who I'm talkin' about. Twas his first role, apparently.)

So yeah, obviously, this has one epic cast. I'm not even going to bother talking about the acting, because it's all pretty stellar. And they were backed up with some fantastic writing, to boot. What I was most surprised about was how funny this movie was. IMDb labels it as a straight drama. I mean, I should have known from There Will Be Blood, but still. The first hour and a half (and/or the 70s segment) had me laughing out loud at times. There are definitely some fantastic quotes in this film.

But then came the drama. The last hour of the movie (and/or the 80s segment) is practically straight drama, which was an rough transition from the lighter fare of the first 90 minutes. I thought the following 25-30 minutes was difficult to get through. I thought it dragged, bringing the what had up until then been excellent pacing down to almost a halt. Fortunately, it does pick up again. Right before the 2-hour mark, in maybe the last 30 or so minutes of the movie, it grabbed my attention again. This is the part where everybody's lives have hit rock bottom. Don Cheadle can't catch a break; Wahlberg, Reilly, and Jane are failures; and Reynolds and Graham have sold out--and all of this comes to a head in a great moment.

Besides that little rough patch, I thought the film was fantastic. The camera work, the style, and the editing were superb. And I thought the music was decent for the most part, but when you have a mixture of Jessie's Girl and 99 Luft Balloons during a shootout, you have some geniuses at work. I said this was a tough review because reviews that rave are dull to write and boring to read. I suppose if I wanted to spark some conversation, I would say this: There's some serious reverse-Oedipus Complex stuff going on here. The mom at the beginning came off as jealous that her son/Wahlberg was getting off with another girl (and/or posters), and Julianne Moore constantly saw Wahlberg as her son... and then banged him continually. That's all I have to say, so I'll just leave it at that.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. ...Penis.)

Musical Monday: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog - Brand New Day (#6).

2011-11-21T10:01:00.000-06:00

Harry Potter... Meet Oscar?

2011-11-20T12:40:00.002-06:00

For the upcoming Oscars, there has been one film that has been on everybody's lips--whether they're talking about the film will definitely be there or there's no way in Hell it'll be there. That film is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. And as quite a known HP enthusiast, I feel I should give my serious thoughts on the subject.

Now, the biggest argument that is pushing for the films winning is that it's the biggest (and most profitable) film series in history and should be acknowledged as such (such as Lord of the Rings was with Return of the King). Detractors, on the other hand, have said that LOTR was one film with one vision (and that also ROTK was deserving in and of itself), and HP is a series with multiple directors, multiple visions, etc. You could argue that David Yates' films have been the best of the series anyway (shut it, Cuaron fanboys!). Even if you don't agree with that, you could mix Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 together and have a one film/one epic/one vision push as it was with LOTR. Yet detractors will come back and say LOTR were all picked up by the Oscars, whereas the Harry Potter films were not. So I want to take both sides into account.

Believe it or not, I'm not going to be a stringent pusher or detractor. I want to take a serious look at each possibility that Warner Bros. put up For Your Consideration and have a discussion. I'm not here to make Oscar predictions for other films (I refuse to mention any other possible contenders in this article). I would just like to spend a wee bit of time on whether or not what WB is pushing for is actually going to happen (or if I think it should happen). So let's get into it.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Alexandre Desplat gave an amazing, haunting score for both Parts 1 and 2. I think that, at the very least, it should be nominated. It's an amazing score. It's hard to say it should win based on the "Epic Series" argument. Like with the directors, the films have had many different composers. Granted, David Yates is known for taking the best of everything from the previous films and mixing it in with his own vision to help with the continuity. The score is one of those things. To top it off, all the films have, at the very least, used John Williams' "Hedwig's Theme," which is now an iconic bit of scoring in and of itself. You could argue that Hedwig's Theme is the one bit that an "Epic Series" win could definitely cover (but you could also argue how fair that would be to John Williams, who was actually nominated back in the day, but didn't win). Though at the very end when the theme swelled, got extremely loud and incredibly close to my heart, it did bring back memories and nearly brought tears.

So it just comes back to Desplat. I do feel his score is strong enough to be nominated. Will it win? We'll have to wait and see what else is nominated. But for right now, I do think it can be a contender.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Deathly Hallows (both films) are two of the most beautiful films in the entire series (shut it, Cuaron fanboys!). Eduardo Serra has an amazing eye. You can't argue that, no matter how you feel about the series, that these films don't look pretty damn good. Again, you can't use the "Epic Series" argument for this category, as there have been multiple cinematographers, and all of the films aren't necessarily worthy of it. In fact, I'd only say half are (Azkaban, Half-Blood Prince, and Deathly Hallows 1 and 2... and the only one of those actually nominated is Half-Blood Prince). So it would be up to the (2) film(s) itself.

Now, Deathly Hallows Part 1 wasn't nominated for Cinematography (which I feel was an upset), so what is the likelihood Part 2 will be? Part 2 gives us a lot of carnage, though that might not be enough visually. Maybe they were waiting for the second part to honor both at the same time through the latter half. Like the previous category, I think it deserves to at least be nominated... but will it win? There have been some strong contenders for this category this year, but I can see this getting a nomination easy.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Is any other category more worthy of a win than this one? First of all, it's based on one of the biggest young adult series' of all time. And despite how you feel about Steve Kloves' adaptation skills, he is one of the Top 3 that helped to bring these films to the screen (the other two being Stuart Craig (production designer, who is truly the artist of these films) and David Heyman (executive producer)). Only one other person came on as writer through the series (Michael Goldenberg - Order of the Phoenix); though some may argue that that one was one of the best. Regardless, if the Academy is going to give it a win for the "Epic Series" argument, it will be in this category. It maybe has 2 strong possible contenders.

Does it hold up as a film adaptation in and of itself? Taking out the "Epic Series" argument, this film might suffer. It's the second half of a 2-part film, and most have argued that not only does it have a strange opening because of this, but the epilogue ending (despite coming straight from the book... I mean, look at the descendants' names alone... Albus Severus, Scorpius, Teddy, Hugo, etc.) isn't strong, either. I honestly don't believe, however, that it will be nominated simply for itself.

There is absolutely no way this film will not get a nomination. There is perhaps a female with skin ink-related film that could upset it; however, I think that this, over any other category, will give the movie its win. But it will be close.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

There are two up for this category, and I can make it through this one pretty fast.

-Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange)

No. Ain't gonna happen. Despite the fact that HBC is a perfect choice for the role, it's not a Oscar-worthy performance. At all. Sorry. It's probably not even going to be considered for a nomination.

-Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall)

Had the film series included McGonagall to the degree the books do (she's a total iron lady with a heart of gold), there could be a possibility of nomination. Maggie Smith is great in the part (not to mention she's awesome in the final film), but her film inclusion is so miniscule that it's really not worth a nomination.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

This is going to be a tough one for me, personally. Again, there are two up for consideration. But are they worthy?

-Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort)

Fiennes is a fine actor (no pun intended), but Voldemort is a little too over-the-top and silly to be considered. I truly can't see this happening.

-Alan Rickman (Snape)

This is the tough one. Sure, people make fun of his long, slow speech with pauses. But Snape is one of the greatest literary characters in modern history, and Rickman portrays him brilliantly (again, despite not being given adequate screen time in comparison to the books). It's become famous that JK Rowling told Rickman about Snape's secret, which could have been a dangerous method of getting what she wanted out of him (due to trusting him in keeping it for a decade), but it led to a perfect performance. Though if we're looking at the films, Rickman is at the top of his game in Part 2, and he could be nominated for The Prince's Tale segment alone.

Should he win? Probably not. But I think Rickman should get a nomination for his role over the last 10 years, culminating into a fantastic set of flashbacks in the final film. Will the nomination actually happen? I doubt it. But I would love to see it.

BEST ACTRESS

Only one on this list, and it's pretty obvious who.

-Emma Watson (Hermione Granger)

No. Of the Trio, I think Watson is the weakest. I actually think she captured Hermione perfectly in the first two films, then became pretty rough in the middle films. She was better in Half-Blood Prince and actually pretty excellent in both Deathly Hallows. But while her performance is quite good in the last two films, it definitely isn't worth an Oscar nomination.

BEST ACTOR

Again, the obvious two choices are here... and I'm going to have a similar opinion.

-Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter)

If Radcliffe were to be nominated, it would be for the "Epic Series" argument. However, I doubt it will happen. There are too many other excellent performances this year. Sorry.

-Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley)

Grint is the best of the Trio, I feel, but if Radcliffe isn't getting a nom, there's no way Grint will, either. Again, sorry.

BEST DIRECTOR

David Yates has directed half of the entire series. In this blogger's opinion, his films have been the best (shut it, Cuaron fanboys!). But there are seemingly thousands of other strong contenders this year that it would be miraculous for Yates to get a nomination. I mean, I suppose it could be possible. Everything's possible. But with a category of only 5 spots to fill, the only reason would be to fill the spot for the "Epic Series" argument.

Would it be fun to see? Yeah. But even if he got a nomination, there's no way he'd win. And I don't think he'll even get the nom. And this just leaves one more category.

BEST PICTURE

This has been the most talked about category over the past year. Will it received a Best Picture nomination? On top of that, will it win? The sole argument for not only its nomination, but its win, is the "Epic Series" argument. I honestly have no clue. I would like it to be nominated. I doubt it would win, but I'd like to see recognition here. I'm just not sure, based on everything I've talked about, if the "Epic Series" argument is enough to drive the nomination.

But who knows? I guess I'm just with everybody else. There's a 50/50 chance.

The Demented Podcast #27 - Outsourced To Sweden.

2011-11-19T00:01:00.001-06:00

Today we're joined by Joel Burman of Deny Everything to discuss Neo-Westerns with Bad Day At Black Rock and The Good, The Bad, The Weird. It's an interesting set of conversations that go from marketing some brilliant ideas to having serious discussions about a Post-9/11 world. Warning that, as usual, spoilers are abound.

Then Joel gives us a Tower performance that we won't soon forget. But for what reasons? Listen to find out!

Also, stay tuned after the closing music for a little something special.

Current Tower Leaderboard
1) Dan - 164 Points
2) Steve - 133 Points
3) Tom - 105 Points
4) Jason - 101 Points
5) Scott - 97 Points
6) Alan - 86 Points

Current/Previous Battle Royale Champions
(BR2) Dylan Fields - 114 Points
(BR1) Rachel Thuro - 171 Points

You can listen to this episode on the player below or by subscribing through iTunes.

60/60 Review #54: The Lives Of Others.

2011-11-16T00:01:00.000-06:00

Most of you probably know by now (or have at least gathered) that straight dramas aren't really my cup of tea. I need to have some kind of other element in there, or at least make it somewhat stylish (City of God, for a recent example). I knew practically nothing of this film going into it except that it's about a guy who listens to people and it won an Oscar (and everybody and their mother hyped it up to me over the last year). And IMDb labels it as drama first, thriller second. About an hour into this 2+ hour movie, I'm asking myself where the thrill is.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. The Lives of Others takes place in Germany prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Wiesler (Ulrich Muhe) is a Stasi, or State Security officer. He's one of the best, and he's been tasked to keep surveillance on a writer named Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) and his actress girlfriend, Christa-Maria (Martina Gedeck). During this time, however, he begins to obsess over them and finds himself too emotionally attached... to the point he alters what really happens to avoid getting them in trouble with the law.

I will be honest--the first hour or so of the film I found rather dull. The opening with the interrogation was good, but after that, I found the pacing drastically pulled back. This was the "straight drama" part of the film. Eventually, though, it found a good footing in some minor suspense and caught my attention again. To be fair, though, I did appreciate and enjoy Wiesler's evolution as a character from heartless to compassionate. I also really liked some bits in the middle (where my attention started being grabbed again) where he truly begins getting captivated by what's going on and you realize he's one lonely man--he even goes so far as to hire a prostitute, and she leaves him still emotionally unsatisfied. It's a great moment. There's also a fantastic bit where he's listening to the couple, and he's essentially holding himself, taking the moment in and trying to live through them.

The acting is fantastic all across the board. Of course, I found Muhe's Wiesler to be the best, but everybody was totally on their game throughout. I know this is a vital element to a drama, as the dilemmas of the characters and how they react to them is the sole heart and purpose of the genre. So for a film to be able to take you to the point you're sympathizing with somebody who is essentially one of the bad guys means that they did something right (well... in most cases. I suppose there are movies where you hate the good guys so much that you root for the baddies, but that's not the case here).

Anyway, it's safe to say that I did enjoy roughly two-thirds of the film. There's about a 20-minute epilogue after the story really ends to help wrap up everything. At first it seems a bit unnecessary, but by the end it makes sense. It's a fascinating premise and a very well-made film. The acting is solid, as is everything else (down to the superb music score). I'm still not a huge fan of dramas, but despite it not being my favorite type of movie, I can agree that it deserves all the acknowledgement it received.

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. That rating is for my personal entertainment score, not to be confused with a rating of quality, which I admit would probably be higher. I'll just say that if you're a fan of dramas, you should definitely check it out.)

60/60 Extra: Brokeback Mountain.

2011-11-15T00:01:00.000-06:00

I want to start off by saying that, although I live in Texas, I am not homophobic in any way, shape, or form. I fully support the GLBT community. The only reason it has taken me this long to see this movie is, well... I just never got around to it. That being said, let's get into the review. It's almost pointless to talk about the plot, because everybody knows what this is just by the title. Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) are two cowboys who get a job wrangling sheep on Brokeback Mountain one summer. They grow close--very close. The job ends and they move on to their normal lives, having relationships and building families. Ennis marries Alma (Michelle Williams), and Jack hooks up with Lureen (Anne Hathaway). But their relationship with each other rekindles, though it slowly destroys both their lives.

I know this film won 3 Oscars (including adapted screenplay, as it was adapted from a short story) and was nominated for more. But... I just couldn't get into it. I didn't find it all that interesting. Now, the idea behind it is interesting--two guys share a romance that tears apart their personal lives during a time when such relationships are forbidden. There's room for great conflict, great drama, and great character development. But I wonder if the fact it came from a short story and was turned into a 2+ hour movie is a bit telling. I don't think there was enough plot to stretch it into such a long movie. Because of this, I was mostly just bored.

What saved the movie was the acting from the two leads. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are fantastic. Ledger, though, was the standout to me between the two, which makes it even sadder to me that he's gone. I didn't care for the female leads, though. Michelle Williams seemed awkward and forced, like she wasn't quite sure she knew what she was doing. And Anne Hathaway almost felt out of place. Apparently Anna Faris was in this movie, too, but I must have blinked, because when her name came up in the credits at the end, I did a double-take.

Overall, I appreciate what this movie did for the GLBT community, and I really liked the two male performances. However, it could have been trimmed down, as I mostly just found it rather dull. I mostly blame me not caring for Ang Lee, though. This is the fourth film of his I've seen, and only one of those four I didn't find particularly dry--which is funny, considering it was the one based on a Jane Austen novel. (Crouching Tiger was good, but rather slow at times itself. Don't even get me started on Hulk.) So I'll just leave it at that.

Stop Saying OK! OK.

Musical Monday: Annie - It's A Hard Knock Life (#7).

2011-11-14T00:01:00.000-06:00

IMMORTALS.

2011-11-11T16:01:00.002-06:00

So, this was basically my most anticipated movie for the second half of the year (Deathly Hallows being for the first). I'm a huge fan of mythologies of any kind, but Greek, of course, was my first love (as it is for most people). When I first saw the trailers for this film, I became pretty dang excited. But were my expectations too high? The movie tells us the story of Theseus (Henry Cavill), a peasant who gets caught up in the war to stop King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke), who wants to free the Titans. Along the way, he teams up with a virgin oracle named Phaedra (Freida Pinto) among others, and gets help from the likes of Zeus (Luke Evans) and an Old Man (John Hurt). Stephen Dorff also co-stars as a rouge thief that teams up with Theseus.

Well, let's start with the obvious: this movie is freakin' gorgeous. If I were to make a Top 10 Most Gorgeous Movies Ever (and I just might), this would definitely make the list. Director Tarsem Singh aimed to make the film look like a painting, and he damn well succeeded. And sure, the costumes (particularly helmets and masks) could get a bit silly, but I still thought it fit the overall setting. But not only is it visually pleasing through the cinematography, but the action sequences are--at times--jaw dropping. In particular, any time the gods fight... well, let's just say it's what you'd expect to see in a God of War film adaptation. Fantastically stunning and brutal. The only visual issue was a CGI hyena (or something) that looks very fake, but it's probably in the movie for less than a minute total.

One thing it took me a while to figure out about this film is how it was approaching the mythology. I know chunks of Theseus' story (the labyrinth and minotaur, for instance), but that's about it. Typically, there are two ways to adapt a legendary story. The first is to keep in all the magic and mystical elements. The second is to make it more realistic, or the "how it really happened/what really inspired the legend" type stories (i.e. King Arthur or the most recent Robin Hood). The reason it took me so long to figure this movie out is that it mixes the two types together. Let me explain...

It makes things more realistic in that, for instance, Hyperion is a man instead of a Titan. The Minotaur is a brutal warrior in a rather freaky outfit (it works, though). The Titans themselves are more monstrous men instead of giant creatures. Tartarus is a mountain, not a pit in the Underworld. Things like that. However, at the same time it's doing this, it does keep in the gods. It does keep in mystical objects (like the Bow). It keeps that magic and mysticism to keep it routed in mythology. Once I figured this out, I enjoyed the film much more. I realized that this made it seem more realistic in terms of how the Greeks might have viewed things. The battles and wars and deaths and locations were all real, tangible things. But every now and then, when necessary, the gods would interfere. In other words, just because you say "this is how the legend really happened" doesn't mean the gods never existed or played a part.

The acting was pretty good around the board. None of it was super fantastic, but you don't really go into a movie like this and expect it to be, either. There were some interesting choices for the roles all around (John Hurt being the best). But I think these are probably the youngest I've seen the gods portrayed, particularly Zeus. Still, they did fine, as did the other actors. Though I'll be honest--Freida Pinto could be terrible and I wouldn't care. I think she's one of the most gorgeous actresses working today. (And she has a nude scene in this! I can't be 100% it wasn't a body double, though... but still!).

Most things I've read about it harp on the script and the dialogue. Besides the thousand mentions of either "the gods" or how one will be "immortalized in history" and the like, I don't recall anything that could give people much to complain about. In fact, I think the way the title was interpreted in the film was a good one. Instead of being about the obvious--the gods--it took it in a different direction. The title is more in reference to being remembered through time or being important in the grand scheme of things. There's also stuff about souls being immortal, as well.

In fact, if I find fault in anything in this movie, it's that there wasn't enough action. The action that is in the film is perfect. But I felt that when there wasn't any action going on, the film either tended to drag or not feel like it was moving forward. This mostly occurred in the first half of the film--and perhaps I felt this way because it was about the halfway point when I had my aforementioned realization. It just seemed like a lot was happening but it wasn't much at the same time. But then again, I'm sure if there was more action, people would be complaining that there wasn't enough substance. And I do have to say that the film does attempt to give you both substance and characters to care for. There was just an issue I can't quite put my finger on, and the best I can come up with is that it needed more action sequences.

The film has been compared non-stop to 300 (partially due to the fact it's the same producers). It's almost nothing like 300 outside of being a stylized Greek myth story. I do feel that Immortals won't find a proper audience until it hits DVD and Blu-Ray, which is a shame, as it's stunning enough that a big screen viewing of it is almost required to gather in all the aesthetics of it. Finally, I'll briefly mention the 3D--it doesn't add much, but it's not a detriment whatsoever. It still looks beautiful and the action brutally awesome. Perhaps I went in with expectations too high, but I still really enjoyed it, mostly thanks to the visuals and the action.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

60/60 Anniversary + Announcement!

2011-11-10T00:01:00.001-06:00

I don't know if you've realized this... but today marks the 1-year anniversary of the 60/60. On November 10th, 2010, I posted the review for the first film of this project. I only have a few more reviews until the 60/60 ends, but... there's another coming up! Well, it's the 50/50, anyway. So to honor the anniversary of the first review... what's better than to show you what films I'll be reviewing next year? As I said before, I'll only be doing one review a week for the project next time (no extras). Also, each month is dedicated to a different person's choices. I took those choices, matched them against each other, and came up with the final list. So, dear readers, here is the list of films for next year's 50/50, which will start halfway through January.

JANUARY (MY MONTH)

18: Jackie Brown
25: Dirty Harry

FEBRUARY (TRAVIS' MONTH)

1: Hausu (House)
8: Videodrome
15: Naked (1993)
22: The Red Shoes
29: Black Orpheus

MARCH (NOLAHN'S MONTH)

7: Ruthless People
14: Gymkata
21: Big Trouble in Little China
28: Godzilla vs. The Smog Monster

APRIL (DAN HEATON'S MONTH)

4: City Lights
11: His Gal Friday
18: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence
25: Le Samourai

MAY (JASON'S MONTH)

2: The Re-Animator
9: Lone Wolf McQuade
16: The Monster Squad
23: Escape From New York
30: Friday the 13th Part 6 - Jason Lives

JUNE (RACHEL'S/SHAKESPEARE'S MONTH)

6: Scotland, PA
13: Richard III (1995)
20: Titus (1999)
27: Much Ado About Nothing

JULY (DYLAN'S MONTH)

4: Road House
11: Point Break
18: Trainspotting
25: Rushmore

AUGUST (JAMES' MONTH)

1: Once Upon A Time In The West
8: Sherlock Jr.
15: Suspiria
22: We Own The Night
29: Peeping Tom

SEPTEMBER (STEVE'S MONTH)

5: The Devil's Backbone
12: Tampopo
19: Double Indemnity
26: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

OCTOBER (JOEL'S MONTH)

3: Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers
10: Friday the 13th Part III
17: Invisible Man (1931)
24: Watership Down
31: Abres Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)

NOVEMBER (JESS' MONTH)

7: Out of Africa
14: High Fidelity
21: Star Trek: First Contact
28: Grosse Point Blank

DECEMBER (KAI'S MONTH)

5: Pusher
12: Pusher II
19: Pusher III
26: Infernal Affairs

60/60 Review #53: City Of God.

2011-11-09T00:01:00.000-06:00

Where to begin? I didn't know much going into this movie going into it outside the fact it's considered one of the best movies ever made (hence why it made the list)... and, of course, the one-sentence plot summary that IMDb gives. So I gave it a watch and... I understand perfectly where people are coming from.

The film follows Rocket (Alexandre Rodrigues)--though it's not particularly about him. Some will say the movie is about both he and a trigger-happy, drug-dealing hood named Li'l Ze (Leandro Firmino). But I disagree. The movie is split up into "stories" that flesh out certain places or characters. I think the most telling segment is the Apartment's story. It's a brief bit that tells you the history of this single apartment that eventually leads to Li'l Ze taking over the city. Why is this the most telling? Because it's a miniature version of the entire film itself. Somebody ran it before, somebody takes it over through violence, runs it for a while, somebody else takes it through violence, and the cycle continues. The main character of this movie is the City of God itself, and we follow who comes in and out of the city, runs the city, destroys the city, etc. Rocket, Li'l Ze, and all the others are merely guests in the story of this city.

That being said, the city has one hell of a story to tell. It's a fascinating movie with fascinating characters. The good guys aren't totally good, the bad guys aren't totally bad, and even Li'l Ze--as insane as he is--does attempt to be more human once or twice. And even though the story of the city is on a cycle, it never felt like it was repeating itself. It never really dragged, either. And despite being moderately lengthy, it has a good pacing.

The acting is phenomenal, and it brings out the quality writing. There are a few moments where maybe the dialogue isn't up to snuff (though that could possibly be blamed on translation?). But otherwise, the storytelling and voice-over narration and everything is rather solid.

The film is also visually stunning. The cinematography and the editing are fun and unique and, at times, rather stylistic. It partially reminded me, at times, of something Danny Boyle might do. Sometimes it was steadicam, sometimes shaky cam, sometimes vibrant, sometimes grainy, sometimes moving pictures, sometimes still pictures, sometimes full screen, sometimes split screen (or partially split screen). It was all done very well, and it made what would otherwise be a gritty, dark film more bearable.

If you have yet to check out this film, I strongly suggest doing so. It's superbly made on all levels. The visuals, acting, writing, directing, etc., are all fantastic. It's much more of a character piece than a plot-driven drama. However, as I said before, the human characters are only incidental. The film is about the city, and all the other characters just show up in each other's stories and grow. And even though it's not the easiest film to sit through (it is rather dark and can be disturbing), it's quite a sight to see.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. I also have to give it props for literally being the only movie I've ever seen based in or around Rio to not exploit--or even show--the Christ the Redeemer statue.)

Musical Monday: Man of La Mancha - The Impossible Dream (#8).

2011-11-07T21:47:00.001-06:00

The Demented Podcast #26 - The Chainsaw Is His Penis.

2011-11-05T00:01:00.001-05:00

What a better way to celebrate the 1-year anniversary of DemPod than with Jason Soto? He, Steve, and I have a blast talking about slashers with 2 films that... well... aren't really slashers. On board first is an Italian crime drama (and/or giallo) called Blood and Black Lace. Then we take on the film that brought Christian Bale to the forefront--American Psycho.

After that, we play The Tower, and I must say it's one of my favorite Tower stories that we've done in a long time. But besides that, how does Jason do? Well... listen to find out!

Current Tower Leaderboard
1) Dan - 164 Points
2) Steve - 133 Points
3) Tom - 105 Points
4) Scott - 97 Points
5) Alan - 86 Points

Current/Previous Battle Royale Champions
(BR2) Dylan Fields - 114 Points
(BR1) Rachel Thuro - 171 Points

You can listen to this episode on the player below or by subscribing through iTunes.

60/60 Review #52: The Seventh Seal.

2011-11-02T00:01:00.000-05:00

So... you have a character that has visions, a character that prolongs his life by attempting to beat death, Death himself following them around taking lives in his wake, some dark humor, and (spoilers!) an ending where those he affects by his extended life end up with his same fate. Dude... The Seventh Seal was the original Final Destination!

Seriously, though... the movie follows Antonius Block (Max von Sydow), a knight of the Crusades, who was supposed to die but instead challenges Death (Bengt Ekerot) to a game of chess. If he wins, he gets a reprieve, but he does get to an extension as long as the game goes on. He continues traveling with his squire Jons (Gunnar Bjornstrand), and eventually meet up with a man-and-wife actors troupe, Jof (Nils Poppe) and Mia (Bibi Andersson). Together, everybody ponders the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Oh, and Jof occasionally has visions of things that nobody believes he actually has.

I've known about this film since I was a kid, mostly for the chess playing bit (in part thanks to Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey). It's too bad, however, that in the 90 or so minutes of this film, that only takes up roughly 5 minutes throughout the overall film. The majority of the movie follows the characters speaking about life and death and more life and more death and the mysteries therein. In other words, the movie is nothing but philosophy. Some might find that interesting. Others might find it painfully dull. Me? I land somewhere in the middle, landing closer to the side of interesting. But I can't deny that after an hour of what feels like the same conversation, one tends to drift off.

It actually works mostly for 2 reasons: the writing and the acting. The writing is pretty damn fantastic and quite poetic in nature. Like I said, the entire thing is rather philosophical, and the way the characters speak to each other is quite beautiful. But if the acting wasn't there to believably deliver those words, it wouldn't have worked. But it does.

And the most surprising aspect of the film was the fact it had attempts at humor. Of course, none of it made me laugh out loud, but I did find parts amusing. Jof, in particular, was a fun character. And Jons the squire had a few good lines (like having written a song about a randy fish).

For the film itself, the writing, acting, and cinematography were excellent. The overall direction and production of it was great. But I think, though, that I liked the idea of the film more than the film itself. I liked what it represented and what it discussed. But the final product was a bit too dry for me.

I Am McLovin!

A Serbian Review.

2011-10-31T12:01:00.001-05:00

NOTE: This review was written by both Jason Soto and myself. Enjoy!

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

Jason: "A Serbian Film" is one of those movies people talk about in hushed tones. Only certain people are aware of its existence, and if you try to bring it to the mainstream, you'll be easily arrested for crimes against humanity. I'm pretty sure the writer and director set out to make a fucked up movie but I don't think even he was prepared for how people were gonna react to this film.

As I throw to Nick to give his opening thoughts, I have to say I have no idea how he'll react to this film as he gave me the pleasure to be the first one to watch it. When I suggested "Visitor Q" to him, saying how fucked up it is, he watched it and laughed it off. If he can laugh off necrophilia and weird lactating mothers, I'm not sure how he'll react to "A Serbian Film."

Nick: Well, Jason... I'm so glad you asked. It turns out my initial reaction was something akin to "I don't mind never seeing this film again. Ever." Now, I talk a lot a little film called Salo. In fact, when Serbian was first in the news, a lot of other people said it was the Salo of our day. I can see that. I felt almost equally ill after finishing this one as I did with that one. But there are at least one or two major differences that set those two films apart, and I think that's what I really want to explore here. But first, let's look at the story itself.

Jason: At the start of the film we're treated to a skanky chick in an alley. We meet Milos, who comes into the alley, and basically rips her panties off and starts fucking her on a motorcycle. This all turns out to be a porn film Milos was in. Milos is a retired porn star with several titles under his cock.

And not only is this from a porn film, but the person watching said porn film is Petar, Milos son. That might not seem like a big deal but Petar is only like 8 or so. So yeah. Milos and his wife Maria walk in on this and turn it off. Milos doesn't think it's a big deal but Maria thinks the porn watching should wait until he's a bit older. Like 10 or so.

Now that Milos is retired, he doesn't really have another job. Maria has a job as some sort of interpreter but it's not enough to pay the bills. So they need some sort of other income. Ok, I have a question: can male porn stars REALLY retire? I mean there are people who are into all kinds of weird stuff (as we'll find out in a bit here) so really couldn't an old guy still be banging away at hot chicks, as long as he's still "equipped"? Milos here still is because that's all everyone says in this movie how Milos can still get it up and keep it hard for a long time.

Nick: Well... there is Ron Jeremy. But that's beside the point. Anyway, an old acquaintance of Milos (a female porn star who has apparently turned to bestiality films to make some cash) has returned to tell him about an underground director who will shell out some big bucks (like, retire and never work a day in your life again kind of big bucks) if he participates in his next porn film. The only catch is... the dude refuses to tell him what the porno is about or what he has to do outside of have sex. After talking it over with his wife, Milos reluctantly agrees.

The first day of shooting has them at an old building for abandoned and orphaned children. So... off to a good start, then, huh? For whatever reason, Milos doesn't turn and run immediately, but instead gets a little earpiece so that the director can tell him what to do. Mainly, he walks around and watches as some females get slapped and dragged around. Then he gets a blowjob while having to watch two videos of an underage girl eating a popsicle and the same girl putting on makeup.

But then the next day (I believe) happens... and he's taken to a room in the building where he's forced to rape a woman. And if that wasn't enough, he has to do it while a young, underage girl from earlier scenes sits and watches. Needless to say, he's a bit weirded out by the whole thing. We're about an hour into the film at this point... it's actually been relatively boring and quite tame in comparison to other films. However, he goes to talk to the director about the movie and what's going on and... this is when the movie gets... well, where it starts to earn its reputation. I'll let my associate briefly describe what you're missing.

Jason: Milos is creeped out and wants out of the project, despite getting a gazillion dollars. The director (whom I'll call Lars Von Trier cause I forgot his name already) convinces Milos to stay cause all he's really doing is just fucking. I don't think that's the real problem, Lars. But Milos stays on...until he's forced to hit a woman. Now that's the last straw.

Milos confronts Lars Von Trier and wants to know what kind of movie this is. Lars says he makes artsy films that involve sex of all kinds. Then he shows him a scene from the movie. I hesitate to even mention this cause really it involves two words that NEVER should be put together, and I'm sure there are people out there who Google such things and I don't want them coming to my site. (I'm sure Nick doesn't want them on his site either.)

Nick: Not particularly.

Jason: Basically, we get a scene of a pregnant lady who produces a new human being, and then we get a guy (who is the guy that's been driving Milos around town) grabbing this new human being and having adult relations with it. Yeah. You wanna know the fucked up part? I KNEW this was going to happen but I DIDN'T know we would actually see the act. Sure the new human being looks fake as hell, but still. That's an image that sticks with you, man.

Nick: Indeed.

Jason: Milos is grossed out, and he runs out of the house. He totally doesn't want anything to do with this movie anymore. But Lars says "fuck that" and drugs his drink, which causes him to pass out. Oh, Lars Von Trier.

Milos wakes up and it's like two or three days later. He's all bloodied and bruised and doesn't remember anything. Ladies and gentlemen, "A Serbian Hangover"! He can't find Maria or Petar so he drives back to Von Trier's house, finds it empty, but finds some tapes lying around. Milos snags them, finds a quiet spot in the forest, and watches a lovely Disney movie.

Ok, not really. It shows all the fucked up shit Milos did when he was blacked out. He fucked a chick, then cut her head off while doing it (Nick: Don't forget the part where he continues to bang her despite the headlessness of the situation). Then there's a part where Milos was passed out so some other dude comes in and fucks him. Nice.

Milos slowly remembers everything, including not wanting to do a scene where he fucks the 12-year-old girl from earlier in the movie (yeah, I'm OK with those grouping of words but not "new human sex") so he escapes from the scene. But Lars Von Trier is a tricky motherfucker! He finds Milos in the street and drags him back to some warehouse. This is where the real fun is.

Nick: You mean we weren't having fun yet? To be perfectly honest, I do think the blacking out and having the majority of the rest of the film be him discovering things through the tapes to be an actual good idea. Too bad the things on the tapes were... well, what they were. Anyway...

Jason: So Milos and some masked guy are presented with two unconscience bodies. They're both covered up except for their asses and one of them is smaller than the other. Both Milos and the masked guy start fucking the bodies, with Milos fucking the smaller one. The masked guy takes his mask off and it's...Milos' brother! And the two bodies they are fucking?

Umm...if you haven't figured it out by now...

Family is missing... Milos was doing the smaller one... yeah... I hope you figured it out.

Nick: Poor Peter Dinklage...

Jason: Armed with this knowledge, Milos just goes fucking nuts and punches and kills dudes left and right. The best part? The "new human fucker" only had one eye so Milos starts FUCKING THE BAD EYE TO DEATH!! After so much fucked up shit, this was such a breath of fresh air. God... did I just say that?

Nick: No, I will back Jason up on this. Everything prior to this point had been so insane and ridiculously awful that by the time Milos fights back and very literally and graphically skull fucks this dude, it's pretty much the most awesome thing you've ever seen in your life. I know that sounds crazy, but trust us... or at least don't call the police.

Jason: Let's end this review.

Nick: I concur.

Jason: Milos kills everyone, including the brother, and takes his family back home. The family is freaked out (naturally) and don't know how to cope with what just happened. They all agree the best way is to just kill themselves. So in the cheeriest of all endings, Milos kills himself, Maria, and Petar with one bullet. And then...some weird guy is at the house, telling some other guy to fuck the dead corpses. THE END!!

Nick: Is the movie totally messed up? To put it lightly, yes. But it's not without purpose. I'm not trying to defend the film, but at the very least, it's not being disturbing for the sake of being disturbing. Outside of the final 30 seconds (which I think is like "OK, that's too much now"), the film does have a purpose and a reason for being what it is. Did it need to be made and done the way it was to give us that purpose? That's a whole other discussion.

Also, on a technical level, it's actually a well made film. It has a decent lead character, a truly evil and despicable villain, a finely paced story, good use of the camera, and even a pretty good soundtrack. Of course, none of that makes up for what is actually involved in the film, and you probably won't find me jammin' out to my brand new Serbian Film soundtrack CD. But I'm just saying that outside of the terrible, evil things that happen in the film, it's rather competently made.

As for how it stacks up to Salo... I'm not sure it does. To be perfectly honest, I found Salo to be more disturbing and vile. While A Serbian Film made me nauseated and upset, I was fine after a few hours--and then forgot most of the movie within the week. Salo, on the other hand, stuck with me for days, and I still can't get some of that imagery out of my head. But there is one major thing, as I stated earlier, that makes Salo more evil and harder to watch--Salo is from the perspective of the evil-doers, and the events are shown in a cheerful, positive light; Serbian Film, on the other hand, is from the perspective of the victims, so it's really not different than a highly disturbing horror film. Milos is just as disturbed and affected by the events as we are. I'm not using this comparison to advocate watching either one of them. But as the two have been compared, and as the newer of the two is often stated as being the most disturbing film ever made, I'm going to have to disagree.

Jason: Holy fuck, what do I say about a movie like this? Ok, if you ignore all the REAL fucked up parts, and just look at it as a film, it is shot brilliantly, the acting is very well done, and the story (again minus the fucked up parts) is good. What would one do to keep food on the table? Would any human really go through these lengths? And supposedly, this is supposed to be a symbolic film about the country of Serbia. I don't live in Serbia so I can't speak for that but if that's true, they should get out.

2 stars.

Nick: Specifically, I think it has to do with being a social commentary regarding censorship in Serbia. But regardless how you look at it, it's a messed up movie. I mean, yeah, if you look past all that stuff, it is very well done all around, but I'm not quite sure that makes up for the actual content of the film (specifically the last 45 minutes or so). I said it earlier, and I'll say it again. I don't mind never seeing this again. Ever.

WTF

Musical Mondays: Pirates of Penzance - I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Major-General (#9).

2011-10-31T00:01:00.000-05:00

Top 10 Favorite Horror/Comedy Double Features.

2011-10-30T00:01:00.002-05:00

Yesterday's list was on my Top 10 Favorite Horror Films. Well, part of the stipulations for that list was that it could not include horror/comedies. To remedy that little issue, I've decided to put together a list of nothing but horror/comedies. Unfortunately, this is one of my favorite genres, and it was incredibly hard choosing. Because of this, I came up with a bit of an ingenious idea. Instead of doing your average Top 10 list, how about going the extra mile? Everybody loves a good double feature... so this list details what my Top 10 favorite double features would be for horror/comedies. This adds a bit of a twist to the countdown, because whereas one movie might go higher on the list than another, one double feature might be made of such pure awesome that I couldn't help but place it higher. So without further ado, here's the list.

Top 10 Favorite Horror/Comedy Double Features

10) Dead Alive/Planet Terror

Connection: Gory, gross-out horror with mutant pseudo-zombies.
Thoughts: Dead Alive is one of the goriest films I've ever seen, but done in such an over-the-top, gross-out way. Robert Rodriguez's Grindhouse flick took a page from the same book, even keeping in the insanity of the violence--just exchanging a lawn mower for a gun-leg. Both are campy and bizarre with regular monsters and even a "final boss"-type climax. Good stuff.

9) Evil Dead II/Army of Darkness

Connection: Part of the same series.
Thoughts: There's no denying the campy fun of either of these movies, from the gore and violence to the batty craziness and awesome one-liners, these two films take the seriousness of the original film and completely go the other direction... but you can't deny it worked out quite well.

8) Snakes on a Plane/Flight of the Living Dead

Connection: Creatures on a plane.
Thoughts: Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherf*ckin snakes/zombies on this motherf*ckin plane! You can't deny the fun factor of Snakes, but it also spawned a great little Asylum flick. The Asylum makes a lot of terrible knock-off films, but Flight manages to actually be a great one. Why? Because you can tell how passionate the filmmakers were. Just listening to the audio commentary is enough to know how much fun they had making it, which translated into how fun the final product turned out.

7) Idle Hands/Beetlejuice

Connection: Ghosts and wacky possessions.
Thoughts: This is the biggest stretch double feature, I know. In the first, Devon Sawa's hand gets possessed by the devil and goes on a killing spree. Meanwhile, his two best friends come back from the dead to help defeat the evil and get back to normal. Beetlejuice, on the other hand, is about a couple that comes back from the dead and tries to kick out the tacky new owners of their home and get back to normal. They take the help of the titular bio-exorcist, but that just causes more harm than good. Both are a little too underrated and would work well together, I think.

6) Ghostbusters/Ghostbusters 2

Connection: Original and Sequel.

Thoughts: 'Nuff said.

5) Feast/Hatchet

Connection: Breaks genre rules while paying homage to said genres.
Thoughts: Feast breaks all the rules, making it a truly unexpected ride. First time through, you honestly will not be able to figure out what happens next. Not to mention it's totally fun and has some dark comedy. Hatchet, on the other hand, pays homage to 80s slashers (even going so far as to have cameos by some of the big names of those times). And, like the former film, you probably won't be able to figure out who will live and who will die.

4) Tremors/Tremors 2

Connection: Original and Sequel.
Thoughts: I know a lot of people don't like any after the first film, and while I agree with the third and fourth... the second one is still awesome to me. It might not have Kevin Bacon, but Fred Ward returns, as does Michael Gross. And how can you not love Burt? It amps up the thrills, the comedy, and everything else that would typically make people like a sequel... so both are awesome in my book.

3) Tucker and Dale vs. Evil/Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon

Connection: Turns the slasher genre on its head by giving an unexpected look at the killers and victims.
Thoughts: I've only seen both of these once, but they're both new favorites, easily. Tucker and Dale looks at slashers by making the apparent villains the good guys and the victims more villainous. Leslie Vernon, on the other hand, takes a much more meta approach by explaining the intricacies and minute details of slashers. Both are fantastic takes on the genre and I can't wait to check them out again.

2) Shaun of the Dead/Zombieland

Connection: Zombies
Thoughts: Similar to my #1 spot, there was probably no doubt in anybody's mind that Shaun was going to end up in at least the Top 2 or 3. The former is one of the best horror/comedies ever made, as well as one of the best zombie movies ever made. And Zombieland is often considered its American equivalent. Not to mention the latter is already mixing in with popular culture with its survival rules. You can't tell me you didn't watch the last episode of The Walking Dead (Season 2, episode 2) and not think "Cardio!"

1) Little Shop of Horrors/Repo! The Genetic Opera

Connection: Bloody Musicals
Thoughts: There was probably no doubt this (or something similar) was going to end up in the number 1 spot. We all know my undying adoration for Little Shop, as well as my unexplainable love for Repo. They go together quite nicely, and I don't think anything else would have hit this top spot.

Runner-Up: Hide and Creep/Undead. Low-budget indie flicks with zombies... and aliens. No further explanation needed.

Top 10 Favorite Horror Films.

2011-10-29T00:01:00.001-05:00

So, roughly a week ago, Kai at Man, I Love Films made a list of his Top 10 Favorite Horror Movies. His stipulations? They are FAVORITES, not BESTS. These are the films that might not necessarily be high caliber, but they're the ones we always go back to because we just love the hell out of them for one reason or another. And they couldn't be horror/comedies. This second rule made it most difficult for me, as I love horror/comedies. Anyway, he inspired me to make a list of my own following his same rules. So here we are. Now, these might not all necessarily scare me (or do I even think are scary). I'm not rating these on scare factor, but rather ones I just love. So here are my Top 10 FAVORITE Horror Films (horror/comedies not included).

Top 10 Favorite Horror Films

10) The Evil Dead

Unlike the other films in the trilogy, this one is a straight-up horror flick. And it works its atmosphere like a mofo. Sure, the effects might be cheesy, but it's a fantastic little film with some truly creepy scenes. It's like if old school horror were done with the 70s and early 80s shock value. Great stuff.

9) The Hills Have Eyes (Remake)

Alexandre Aja's remake is pretty damn good. Not only is it hella creepy and disturbing, but it's incredibly intense. The last 20 minutes with Aaron Stanford going hardcore badass is probably one of my favorite parts of any horror film. Oh, and the rest of the movie is pretty good, too.

8) The Mothman Prophecies

I might get some flak for this one, but I think this is one of the freakin' scariest movies out there. A lot of people find it dull or just a flat-out snooze-fest. But this movie terrifies me for some reason. I can't watch this and then drive at night for at least a week. The telephone call scene in the motel room, the car wreck... a lot of it is just totally freaky to me.

7) Trick R Treat

Out of all the movies on this list, this is the one I've seen the least. I watched it for the second time just the other day. It's on Instant Streaming, but I also now own it on Blu-Ray. It's a fantastic mix of style and cleverness. It has a comic book feel, but it's also an anthology feature. But unlike most anthology collections, these are intertwined and play out in a non-linear fashion... and I do love it when storytellers take this kind of approach. It's a new holiday staple for this time of the year.

6) Final Destination

The first one is the best one (though the fifth wasn't all the bad, either). From the second on, the series tried to be too goofy. The first one is more serious, though, and it's quite an original premise. Not to mention it has a fantastic cameo by Tony Todd that carried over into (most of) the rest of the films.

5) Dawn of the Dead (Remake)

I'll be honest. I love and respect George Romero. Night and Dawn are fantastic bits of horror history (I can take or leave Day). And while his original Dawn of the Dead might be responsible for almost everything we know and love about zombies today (I'd argue even moreso than Night)... I find it to be kind of a boring flick overall (Night, on the other hand, holds up much better). That being said, Snyder's remake is a fantastic one. Sure, it introduces a thousand more characters and loses a little of the intimacy of the original for the sake of a body count, but it gives us some really memorable characters and moments. Hell, even Andy, the gun store owner across the street whose voice you maybe only hear for 30 seconds of the film... is a compelling character. Oh yeah, and the first 10-15 minutes is one of the best segments in a zombie movie.

4) Pitch Black

OK, I know I'm going to get some arguments here. You probably think this is more sci-fi than horror. Sure, it does have some heavy sci-fi elements, but they're being stalked and killed by freaky aliens... so I count it. Not to mention Riddick is a murderer. Speaking of, Richard B. Riddick is one of my favorite antiheroes ever and would easily be in my Top 5 favorite sci-fi characters. And I personally can't wait for the Chronicles sequel that is supposed to be more like this film than that other... thing.

3) Cube

I've seen and own all three of these films, but none of the match up to the original. It's insanely smart and makes me love Vincenzo Natali more and more every time I see it. And I hate a certain death at the end of the film every time I see it. And it hurts just as much the hundredth time as it did the first. And... I could keep going, but you should just go out and see this if you haven't already.

2) Saw

It's been said a thousand times (most of those times by me). The first film is unfairly lumped in and given a bad rep due to its sequels, which it is almost nothing like. I'll admit--I'm a fan of the entire series. Think whatever you want about the gore or what have you, but this series has some of the best continuity, hands down, of any film series in history. It's pretty outstanding. Regardless, the first is the best and will always be the best. And I'll never forget when I saw this in theater, thought I had it figured out, and then proceeded to sit with an open mouth throughout the credits. And the main theme (Hello Zepp) is awesome.

1) 28 Days/Weeks Later...

Yeah, yeah, call it a cheat. I couldn't choose one, so I lumped both together. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. The first one is all about the characters and their relationships with each other. The sequel is all about the tension and suspense. And Jeremy Renner is in it (and he's also gone on record saying that he, along with the director and Danny Boyle, do not see these films as zombie movies, no matter what others say)... no, I'm not letting that go! Anyway... not to mention that both films have fantastically brilliant openings. The first one is more drawn out in confusion of the main character, while the second is more in the quiet opening that turns into a chaotic escape. And the main theme is awesome.

Runners-Up

I know some people don't like runners-up because they feel it makes the idea of having a cut-off to the top list moot... but there are some that barely missed this list... whether for reasons that I haven't seen them enough times to yet become favorites (I Saw the Devil, The Shining); them being more atmospheric than scary or iconic (1408, Stir of Echoes, The Orphanage); them having a great atmosphere and scares, but with a controversial ending that could make or break it (Silent Hill, The Mist); or them being favorites I just couldn't fit in (Misery, Pontypool, The Faculty).

60/60 Review #51: Nosferatu (1922).

2011-10-26T00:01:00.001-05:00

It's funny--I blew through almost every movie on this month's list in a couple weeks. But then I was left with this one and kept putting it off. I once said I believed M was the oldest film I had for the list. That, of course, was incorrect. This 1922 classic is the oldest. The only visual I've ever known from this film, which is a visual I've known even since I was a little kid, was the shadow (and then the woman on the bed), both of which are in the climax. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

For those unawares, this film was infamously adapted from Bram Stoker's Dracula, changing a few things here and there to avoid copyright... which they were unable to avoid still as Stoker's widow sued and had them burn every copy and negative. Fortunately, some had been distributed around the world by this point and the film survived. So we get Hutter (Gustav von Wangenheim), who is hired by Knock (Alexander Granach), to travel to Transylvania to meet with Count Orlok (Max Schrek). The Count wants to buy a house in their village, and they're going to set him up with an abandoned building across the way from Hutter's own place. Unfortunately, Hutter quickly discovers that Orlok is actually the deadly vampire, Nosferatu.

If you don't count a big chunk of The Great Dictator, this would be my first silent film. This is also the oldest film I've ever seen (with M in 1931 having taken the previous spot, with Freaks in 32 before that). And all of that worried me. However, practically neither of those things were my issues with this movie. Well, I suppose it could be attributed to it in a round-about way, but... let me explain.

The first half of the film bothered me more than the second half for technical reasons. I think the film might have been more effective in black and white than with the weird color hues throughout. I know they were used to determine day from night and whatnot, but it was still mildly bothersome. Also, while overall the music was quite excellent, the music of the first half of the film sometimes didn't seem to match up with the apparent mood it wanted you to take from the scene. For instance, there could be dramatic or eerie music, but the actors were being goofy (I'll get to that in a minute)... or there was more light-hearted music, and the scene appeared to be more serious.

Then there's the acting. For the most part, it was alright. Max Schrek in particular was creepy and menacing as the title character. However, the character of Hutter was... freakin' whack or something (to borrow a teen phrase of the day). I've seen arguments where perhaps he was supposed to be off his rocker. I've seen others that state the opposite and that the actor was just doing a poor job--though that undermines an otherwise competent director. But no matter how you look at it, the guy played the character to an annoying and bizarre level. His over-the-top reactions to things were... almost always out of place and unfitting of the moment. Sure you might argue it was the acting of the times or of expressionist film-making, but really none of the other actors were acting that way. I'm sorry, but it was a huge detriment to the film for me.

Then you have the narrative cards. In silent films such as this, these are the main things to help you with the flow of the story. And I know it's due to the time period and style, but man were a lot of the lines and wording super cheesy. It adds a certain charm to the film, yeah, but still... worth mentioning. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the majority of the time, the narrative cards that I could read quickly were on the screen forever, to the point I could read them numerous times; however, the longer cards were up for half the time, and sometimes I couldn't even finish reading them. It could be quite annoying.

So I mentioned at the beginning the shadow/bed stuff being the only thing I knew about the film visually. That scene is in the last 4 or so minutes of the film, and by golly is that a fantastic 4 minutes. There's a reason that's probably the most famous part of the film. The entire climax of the movie is outstanding. Everything works together--the music, the tension, the visuals. The shadow up the stairs followed by the shadow of the hand sliding over her chest and then closing over her heart... amazing. If you're going to watch this film for anything, do it for the last 4-5 minutes. Oh, and in a kinda-spoiler way, did you know that this movie was what introduced "vampires are killed by sunlight" into vampire lore? I thought that was a neat fun fact.

Overall, in these types of films, you only have 3 main things to work off of: The actors' expressions, the music, and the narrative cards. It's unfortunate that I found fault in the use of all 3 of these things. Now don't get me wrong. For 1922, I can see how this movie (especially Orlok himself) are freakin' terrifying. I find his looks scary even today. And for its time, I suppose it's rather well done. But looking back on it now, from somebody who doesn't typically watch this style of film (and I don't mean horror), it's merely OK... but with one hell of a climax (oh, and that rising from the coffin bit was awesome, too).

Stop Saying OK! OK.

(P.S. That will wrap up Horror Month! What a month! We're on the home stretch now. There's really no more themed months. November is a mish-mash of films I couldn't fit into other categories, but on the heavier side of things. Let's see how I do with what I'm given!)

Musical Monday: Once - Falling Slowly (#10).

2011-10-24T00:01:00.002-05:00

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3.

2011-10-23T00:01:00.001-05:00

I tried not to get pulled in by hype, and I'm not sure why I always am. The first film looked 'eh', but it was decent. The second film looked 'eh', and it was mostly dull with a fantastic final 20 minutes. I wasn't very hyped for the third until reviews started coming in... and it was a let down... somewhat. The third in the franchise continues to take us backwards as we finally get to see what happened when sisters Katie and Kristi were little girls, which has been alluded to for 2 films now. You know the drill by now, I'm assuming. Weird stuff starts happening, the man of the house starts to film it, and things escalate as each night goes by until an insane finale.

The trick with this one, however, is that it takes place in 1988, so video recording in the way this series is set up is a bit trickier. For instance, they have to film with video tapes instead of digital... which brings us to plot hole number one. Dennis (the male lead in this one) even states that he can only record no more than 6 hours at a time before having to change the tape. That means to see some of the stuff we see, he's having to constantly switch the tapes every 6 hours. Now, I'm no mathematician, but if the couple goes to bed around 10 (and the girls prior to that), that means the recording would stop about 4 AM at the latest--and that's assuming he changes the tape(s) at 10. But lo and behold, there are at least 2-3 events that occur after 4 AM. I know this is nit-picky, but it bugged me. And not just the 4 AM thing, but the logistics of changing the tapes every 6 hours for nearly 2 and a half weeks.

Besides the tape switching, they actually do use the cameras to good effect. There's one rigging in particular (the kitchen/dining room rigging) that I thought was ingenious and used quite well in the film. It took the scares from "what's in the closet?" to "what's around the corner?" That does build tension very well.

Unfortunately, the movie is mostly all tension and no pay-off. You're waiting and waiting for things to happen. Sometimes they do. Oftentimes they don't. You know in the first two films when you reach those middle nights? The ones where things become noticeable, but not to the point it's gotten physical (moving people and whatnot). That's where the majority of the film stays. And any jump scares can be seen a mile away, particularly those at the beginning. There are some really good moments, though. In particular, the Bloody Mary scene is great, as is most of the next 5-10 minutes after that. And the "sheet" scene is good, too. The ending, however, is a bit lame. It lost a lot of the tension and build-up and replaces it with "Um... what's going on?" Then it just dissolves into practically the same exact ending as the other two films.

One major difference that I think people might appreciate is that our male lead is actually quite likeable... and he stays that way for the entire film. A lot of people couldn't stand Micah (or Katie, really) in the first film. There were a few similar complains for the second. But I found Dennis (and his friend/co-worker Randy) to be really good and fun.

You're also left with more questions than answers. The whole time I'm waiting to see the house fire that the first two films talk about so much, but it never happens. Then there's something that the demon wants Kristi to do, but you never find out what (I might have a thought, but it's nothing more than that). I won't even get into the whole climax and what was going on there. All I know is that I didn't leave the theater scared, nor did it have any moment that really scared the hell out of me like, say, the second one did. And everybody around me left saying how unscary the movie was. Not a particularly good sign. Overall, it wasn't bad. It had some really interesting ideas and moments. But on the whole, it was just the exact same formula and didn't give us a whole lot new.

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. The freakiest thing? The youngest girl had a Teddy Ruxpin, which are creepy in and of themselves. But I couldn't help but laugh as I remembered the Nostalgia Critic's skit about the possessed killer Teddy Ruxpin. To top it off, my parents decided to do some cleaning today. And what did they find? You guessed it... my old Teddy Ruxpin.)

The Demented Podcast #25 - We Like To Go That Extra .1%.

2011-10-22T00:01:00.002-05:00

This week, Steve and I are joined by Alan of The Great Movie Project to discuss animated films The Iron Giant and Spirited Away. As usual, we get some interesting discussions before moving on to The Tower. Before even starting, Alan declared himself essentially Dan's antithesis. But is he? Listen to find out!

Current Tower Leaderboard
1) Dan - 164 Points
2) Steve - 133 Points
3) Tom - 105 Points
4) Scott - 97 Points

Current/Previous Battle Royale Champions
(BR2) Dylan Fields - 114 Points
(BR1) Rachel Thuro - 171 Points

You can listen to this episode on the player below or by subscribing through iTunes.

60/60 Extra: Dead Alive.

2011-10-20T00:01:00.000-05:00

It was a shock to a handful of people that I'd never seen this movie... which isn't entirely true. I'd seen at least part of the lawnmower scene! Anyway, despite having known about this movie since I was a wee lad, it turns out I didn't know much of anything about this movie (story-wise), as I thought it was something totally different than what it turned out to be. Lionel (Timothy Balme) is a momma's boy to the extreme, doing anything and everything for his mum (Elizabeth Moody) to make sure she stays happy. But when a young woman named Paquita (Diana Penalver) starts to take an interest in him, he begins to get conflicted. However, while spying on one of their dates, Lionel's mother gets bitten by a rat-monkey from Skull Island (yes, that Skull Island) that infects her until she dies and reanimates as a zombie. She eventually infects others as well until everything culminates into a massacre at their house.

Also for those unaware, this was actually directed by none other than Peter Jackson (I did know that one). So the film does have some chops behind it. Strangely, however, I felt the visual style was reminiscent of Sam Raimi (or possibly early Tim Burton at times). It had a very Raimi feel to it, though, with the gore and gross-out factor.

And holy crap is this movie heavy on the gross and gore. Granted, it's done in a cheesy, insanely over-the-top way... but that doesn't stop it from being the goriest movie ever made (a title which I still believe it holds). I knew it had a lot of blood and gross things, but I honestly didn't expect what I got. It's really not for those with a weak stomach, as even I thought I was going to get queasy once or twice.

There are also some fantastic moments in this film. The climax in and of itself is masterful, and you can tell how it's a classic bit. But even some lines throughout are hilarious in their absurdity. My favorites in particular are "I kick ass for the Lord!" and "Your mother ate my dog!" It's not all blood and guts, though. There's a sweet romance at the core of the film, and you really want Lionel and Piquita to end up together.

Overall, if you like horror/comedies or you're a gore-hound... you've most likely already seen this. But in the off chance you haven't, definitely check it out. It's fantastically cheesy, gross, disgusting, and awesome all at the same time. I know I didn't say anything too deep about this film, but there's not all that much you can say. It's one of those films you'll either really dig or really won't... and for very simple reasons. But me? I dug it... quite a bit.

Royale With Cheese

60/60 Review #50: Shark Attack 3: Megalodon.

2011-10-19T00:01:00.001-05:00

Note: Ladies and gentlemen, I have reached the 50th review (not including Extras) for this project! 10 more (official) to go! Also... I adore the fact that in a list full of some of the greatest movies ever made... this is number 50.

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

Sometimes some of the greatest lines in film are improvised. The Drill Sergeant's speech in Full Metal Jacket. "Here's Johnny." "I'm walkin' here!" "You talkin' to me?" "You're gonna need a bigger boat." But none of these can match the sheer brilliance of the line that made this movie famous, the line improvised by John Barrowman after a hard day's work. Standing, relaxing, and talking to the female lead, he decided to utter these fateful words: "I'm a little wired... what do you say I take you home and eat your pussy?"

And thus we have Shark Attack 3. I'm relatively certain this is the only Straight-to-DVD film on this entire list, but it deserved to be here. It's in what I consider to be the Unholy Trinity: The Room, Troll 2, and Shark Attack 3. We're introduced to Ben (John Barrowman), who I'm pretty sure is some kind of coast guard in Mexico. He finds a giant shark tooth and posts it online as he can't identify it (and he takes the picture by holding it in his hand with his desk in the background, as it shows up on his screen with a white background and as if he weren't holding it). He's contacted by Cataline (Jenny McShane), a young marine researcher who says the tooth belongs to the Megalodon, a rare and ancient shark. But now they must start protecting people after a corporation draws the shark near with an underwater telecommunications wire.

There's absolutely no doubt that everything about this movie is horrible. It's a total mix of writing, acting, and directing. With such profound lines as "sharks are always biting things" or how characters react to situations (for instance, Cataline is standing in a dark room, and she screams when she appears out of nowhere when the night guard turns his flashlight in her direction). Don't even get me started on the scene where Ben grabs a miniature wooden bat and starts beating the shark on its side screaming "Die! Die! Die!" Anyway, the delivery of lines is off throughout, there's random nudity, and it's just... yeah, it's not good.

The editing is painful, as well. Every time the shark bites, you have these cheesy biting effects over the screen/camera. The attacks are choppily put together. And the film sometimes uses totally random stock footage that's not even the same visual/camera style. I also doesn't help that the shark looks smaller in the water, but ends up much larger when it attacks. Then there's the CGI in the third act... wow.

And the film has quite a few moments, particularly at the end that really, well... (yeah)... jump the shark. Really, the entire third act when you realize something rather... big. The movie just turns WTF awful from there. But in spite of this, it's all freakin' hilarious. Basically, from the aforementioned line (at the beginning of this review) onward, the movie takes a sharp turn and gets so bat-shit crazy you can't help but enjoy the ride.

That's the fun of Shark Attack 3. Like the other two films in the Unholy Trinity, it's painfully awful, but it's simultaneously buckets of fun. The first hour is unfortunately a bit slow (albeit still entertaining), but the last 30 minutes more than makes up for the rest of the film. If you're a fan of so-bad-they're good, and you haven't checked this one out, do so as soon as possible. You won't be sorry.

A Hot Mess

Musical Monday: Little Shop of Horrors - Skid Row (#11).

2011-10-17T00:01:00.002-05:00

60/60 Extra: The Changeling.

2011-10-13T00:01:00.001-05:00

I'm relatively sure this one was a victim of hype. After all, when everybody and their mother tells you that The Changeling is one of the greatest ghost story movies ever made, you go into it with rather high expectations. But before you grab your torches and pitchforks, let me actually give you my thoughts. The film has a unique story in that John (George C. Scott) has recently lost his wife and daughter in an accident. He moves to Seattle where the historical society puts him up in an old mansion. However, strange things start happening, and he starts to figure out that the history behind what happened in the house might involve a bigger cover-up than one might think.

Besides the hype, I think the one disadvantage going into the film was that I'd seen dozens of ghost films... and all the tropes are the same. It might have been more original in 1980, but I literally knew every little thing that was going to happen (scare wise). Because of this, the film really wasn't scary whatsoever. It was just too predictable. There was one big that freaked me out, though. Despite seeing it coming a mile away (no pun intended), the moment following getting rid of his daughter's bouncy ball made me jump and gave me chills. I think it was more for the sound play than the event, though.

Speaking of, they probably could have played more with the fact he lost his wife and daughter. Besides the aforementioned scene, the only purpose it plays is a catalyst for his move and is never truly utilized within the plot. The story almost entirely focused on the current mystery.

All of that aside, it reminded me of a mixture of The Orphanage and Stir of Echoes (but grander in scale in conspiracy). It also felt strangely of J-Horror. I can see a lot of influences--or at the very least similarities--in modern Asian ghost stories from this film. The story itself was more intricate with the ghost itself wanting vengeance for what happened. Not to mention the ending was totally bizarre and rather metaphysical.

Another more unique turn of events for this film is how it paces itself. By the end of the first hour, you learn the Who, What, When, Where, and How. After another 10 minutes, you learn the Why (and another Who). I wondered what could possibly be left to do. But the last 35 minutes take an interesting direction and show us how the characters deal with the information they've learned. Whereas in most ghost stories, once you learn the mystery, it's fixed in minutes and that's about it. Here, you learn the mystery and still have a whole other third of the film left for them to try and find a solution.

Overall, the movie was slow paced at times (particularly in the first 30-40 minutes). The first hour (the true ghost story aspect) was quite predictable, but only predictable because I've seen all the films that have followed since. With the exception of maybe one moment, it wasn't very scary--it was more creepy and atmospheric. But it was still quite a solidly made film, especially for its time, and I especially recommend it if you're one who loves ghost stories and/or gets scared a little more easily than I do. It does have some unique takes on the genre, even by today's standards--the Title issue being the most unique. I recommend it.

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. I do have to mention the "wheelchair" scene at the climax. That might have been terrifying when this first came out, but dear God was I trying to hold in my laughter at how ridiculous that looked. The boy's voice, too, was marginally silly.)

60/60 Review #49: The Shining (1980).

2011-10-12T00:01:00.001-05:00

All work and no play makes Nick a dull boy. All work and no play makes Nick a dull boy. all work and no play makes nick a dull boy. alL work and nO play maKes nick a dUll boY. All wok an no poy mocks nic a dul booy. All...

(Anyway...)

If you've been following along with this project, you know I've had an interesting track record with Stanley Kubrick, who seems to have had more movies on this list than any other director not named Hitchcock. Project-wise, the only one I've really liked is A Clockwork Orange. All the others have been between "eh" to "Oh God, Dear God, Kill Me Now." So which end of the spectrum did this one fall under?

Based on the Stephen King novel, The Shining tells us the story of Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), a writer who takes up the job as caretaker of a hotel during its off season. Along with him is his meek wife, Wendy (Shelley Duvall), and his son, Danny (Danny Lloyd). Danny learns from the cook, Hallorann (Scatman Crothers), that he has what he called the shining, a psychic ability. And this ability gives him deadly visions of both the hotel's past and its future. Meanwhile, Jack starts going crazy, as the evils of the hotel begin taking over his sanity.

Visually, the movie reminded me very much of A Clockwork Orange. There were numerous colors at work, making it a very visually pleasing film. But juxtaposed against that were purposeful uncomfortable camera angles, tight corridors, and long takes. It was such a fascinating camera style that I didn't often want to take my eyes off the screen, just due to the fact I wanted to know what Kubrick was going to do next with the camera and the colors. The soundtrack worked well hand-in-hand with the visuals to add to the creepy and uncomfortable style.

Of the four primary roles, 2 of them were excellent, and 2 were somewhat questionable. Nicholson was having a ball with the role, and this is probably one of my favorite performances of his. My favorite in the movie, though, had to be Scatman Crothers. First of all, that's one of the coolest names ever. Second, his character was fun and interesting to watch, and I loved when he was on screen. Then there's the boy, who I can't make up my mind if he was good or bad. I look at scenes halfway in where he goes back and forth between himself and Tony and see excellence. But then I look at his reactions to freaky stuff and have to try not to laugh. The faces he makes are ridiculous and unintentionally funny. Finally, we have Shelley Duvall, and I'm left wondering about the character and her casting. For the way the character was written in the film, Duvall was a great choice... despite seeming out of place either way. I just had trouble going along with her character and her in the movie in general, but I'm not sure if that was more her fault of the script.

So speaking of writing, let's start with the wife. From what I've read up on with the differences between the novel and the film (as I haven't read the novel, but heard it's much different), all the things I questioned or had issue with in the movie turned out to be some kind of major change from the book version. Wendy, for instance, is a much stronger female character in the book, but her film version is just meek and never really pulls past that. She becomes protective and fighting for survival at the end, but always stays in a scared defensive rather than moving into a tough offensive. I think the fate of Scatman Crothers' (I do love that name) reminded me a bit too much of a similar character in Misery. I honestly had no major problem with all the weirdness and ambiguity, but there was one thing that bugged me--and again, I've heard it's done better in the novel. Jack's transition to crazy just kind of... happens in the movie. It's not gradual. It's just one minute he's sane and the next he's kinda dropped off the deep end. Don't get me wrong... his evolution of insanity is gradual. He moves from a 1 to a 10 on the crazy scale. But if you were to take that same scale and put sane as 1 and minimally insane as 10, he jumps from like a 4 to a 10 with no middle ground.

I didn't pick up on this while watching, but I read something after-the-fact stating something along the lines of how Jack is talking about violence being OK because it was on TV, early on in the movie... but at the end, after he gets hit in the head, he speaks in almost nothing by TV quotes. I thought that was rather clever and made me like it even more.

There's a lot to love in this movie... so I do. Despite all the negative I've stated, none of it really bothered me too much. I greatly enjoyed the film and do feel that, as of right now, it's edged past A Clockwork Orange into my favorite spot from the man. I don't think it's an absolutely perfect movie, but it's an incredibly well made one and a thoroughly entertaining and creepy one. I think the visual style mixed with the soundtrack is what hooked me the most (similar with Orange). So don't worry all of you who worried about what I'd think of this one. I think it's safe to say I quite enjoyed it.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. I know this is probably damn near blasphemy, but besides Danny's hairstyle being quite similar to Orange's Alex, it also reminded me way too much of freakin' Bucky Larson. Just look it up... I think that connection is almost the scariest thing about this...)