Thoughts On Romantic Comedies.

With it being Valentine's Day, I thought of the perfect topic of discussion: How relationships always fail because guys suck. Cheerful, no?

There are many reasons why males don’t often like to see chick flicks/romantic comedies. Personally, I like a good romantic comedy. I have no problems with the romance aspect of it, and they can be pretty funny. But something I’ve begun to notice (call me slow, if you will) is that there is one major trend in all romantic comedies: the guy is always wrong. He’s always a jerk. He’s always the one to screw everything up. He’s always the one who has to come crawling back to redeem himself.

Just looking at more recent films, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Break-Up start off with a break up because the woman feels underappreciated by the guy; The relationships in Shaun of the Dead and Knocked Up fail because the guys are losers afraid to grow up; The main characters in Hitch and My Best Friend’s Girl are womanizers; She’s All That and 10 Things I Hate About You have a guy who falls in love with a girl he makes a bet on. Hell, even The Princess Bride would never have happened if they guy hadn’t left his love and ‘died’.

I’m not trying to be misogynistic or anything, but females do screw up in real-life relationships, too. Sometimes the guy isn’t even at fault for what happens. But you never see that in film. In fact, the only time you ever do see a woman at fault in a relationship, it’s somebody like Isla Fisher in Wedding Crashers who is just clingy to the point of terrifying—the over-the-top female. But even then, the guy is still partially at fault just because of the nature of the movie.

The closest I’ve ever come to seeing a movie where the female is more at fault than the male in the leading relationship was in How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days. Kate Hudson is writing an article about everything she can do to break up with a guy in 10 days. Matthew McConaughey is a guy who makes a bet (seems to be a really common plot device, huh?) that he can make a woman fall in love with him in 10 days. Clearly the woman is more of a jerk in the situation, but the guy is still at fault for making a sleazy bet to begin with. Juno would be another one, because outside of getting her pregnant and asking another girl out (under Juno’s request), Michael Cera’s Paulie Bleeker didn’t really do anything wrong. Yet the movie still skews it to where the male is still at least partially to blame (he should have read between the lines).

Now maybe one exists out there and I just haven’t seen it. But I’d really like to see a romantic comedy one day where the roles change and the guy is actually blameless and it’s the woman who has to come back apologizing. I know these are typically marketed for women, and women don’t want to see movies where they screw up (heaven forbid), but they are also made with the knowledge that girlfriends and wives will drag their (usually unwilling) boyfriends and husbands to see the film, as well.

After all, in the end, what does the theme of ‘the guy is a jerk and the woman eventually takes him back’ really doing? It’s setting a standard for women that, if your guy treats you like crap, you should always take him back. Well, if you’re gonna freak with the feminine mind, you might as well have equal time and freak with the masculine mind, as well. Let men know it’s okay to accept the faults of females and be forgiving. Don’t just tell us how much we suck.

Thoughts?

Thoughts On The Original Star Wars Trilogy.

So this weekend I did something that I haven’t done since I was a little kid: I watched the original Star Wars trilogy. Granted, they were the updated versions (which I’ll get to momentarily), but the original trilogy nonetheless. Now, let me prelude by saying most of what I have to say has probably been said thousands of times by more avid Star Wars fans than myself, but I now want to put myself among the (lesser) ranks with my own opinion now that I’ve re-watched the first ones at a more recent time in my life.

There’s really no reason to do a movie-by-movie focus. I can talk about all three at once. The first two are obviously the best (with Empire inching out on top, of course). Return of the Jedi wasn’t terrible, but it had a lot of problems with making me want to actually focus on the film. The whole first part of the film at Jabba’s was great. And the speeder chase through the trees is awesome. The final showdown between Luke, the Emperor, and Vader? Good stuff. The rest, though? It was… alright. And I’m not gonna riff on the Ewoks, either. I think the biggest issues dealt with the fact that the first two films were these gritty, religious, Hero’s-Journey epics, while the third was more of a light-hearted romp into the land of slapstick and fantasy. It just didn’t feel like it fully belonged (outside the specific scenes previously mentioned).

And speaking of religion, I now understand where people are coming from in some annoyance with the prequel trilogy. The Force is symbolic for religion, obviously, and you have to have faith in it in order to be strong with it. And then there’s the ‘good’ and ‘dark’ sides of it. But then you get into the prequel trilogy, and it’s midiclorians? The Force has gone from religion to science? That just doesn’t seem right (or as awesome).

And another thing that made me question the prequels was the fact that in the original, Luke was able to become a Jedi in a matter of a year or so (I’m not sure how long is between Empire and Jedi, though I figure a good chunk of time). However, in the prequels, Anakin is said to be way too old to even begin training (granted, Yoda says the same of Luke), but Anakin was only like… 8. Luke was much older than that. And not only does it take over a decade for Anakin to become a full-fledged Jedi, but they blame starting his training too late (I believe) on him going to the dark side. If it was so late for Anakin at his young age, then Luke really must have been God-like to withstand the Emperor.

But anyway, back to the original trilogy. The biggest issue I had with them mainly started in Empire, which was Han and Leia’s relationship. It comes mostly out of nowhere and doesn’t really develop. It just happens. But besides that, the only other issue I had came with the revamp of the special effects. Because when the stop-motion looks better than your re-done computer graphics, you know something’s up. I would have much preferred seeing the original versions. Not to mention the whole Han versus Greedo issue that stemmed from it. I wasn’t even a hardcore fan, and even I felt like adding in Greedo’s initial shot diminishes the character arch of Han from anti-hero to hero. Though that will annoy me when people say “Han shot first!” Because technically, Han didn’t shoot first. He just shot. It requires two people to shoot for there to be a first or second, and if you say Han shot first, you’re acknowledging the re-vamped version as the appropriate version, in which it is actually Greedo that technically shoots first. So congratulations, you’re stupid in two different ways (sorry, I just felt like making a Role Models reference).

I really don’t want to beat a dead horse here, though. I’m pretty much in agreement with the vast majority on almost every aspect. My opinion doesn’t differ much from anybody else. I’d say the only differences would be that I don’t find the Ewoks to be annoying (just out-of-place), nor do I dislike Jar Jar Binks from the prequels. But the prequels aren’t really supposed to be the focus of this Thoughts On… though I really think I’ve already messed that up. Oh well. Might as well stop while I’m ahead. Though if you’d like my opinions on any of the films or certain aspects of any of the films, just hit me up in the comments, and I’d be happy to converse with you about it (in fact, that’d be quite loverly).

So until next time!

Thoughts On The 28 _____ Later Movies.

I thought I should do a thoughts on on two of my favorite horror movies: 28 Days Later… and 28 Weeks Later. Unlike the previous thoughts on segments, however, this one will be both a discussion and a set of reviews (including scores). So why not just do a 2 In 1 you ask? Because there’s more I want to talk about than just the acting or cinematography or whatnot. Plus, it’ll be easier to focus on both movies simultaneously.

So first and foremost, I need to bring up the most discussed topic on these two movies: What, exactly, are The Infected? Well, they’re not zombies. I repeat:

They are not zombies.

I love zombies. I’m a zombie fanatic. I’ve studied them left and right, from the voodoo variety to the heights of George Romero and the lows of Uwe Boll. So I can safely say that to be a zombie, you must have the following three primary characteristics:

1) You must be dead.

This is key to being a cinematic zombie. You have to be a reanimated corpse, whether slow or fast for whatever reason.

2) You must eat human flesh.

This is second most important, and most obvious, trait of being a zombie. Zombies eat people. That’s why they’re so fearsome. They don’t just go for brains (as the awful Return of the Living Dead movies portray), but any bodily flesh.

3) You can only be killed via brain damage (such as a gunshot) or decapitation.

Shoot them in the knees, they’ll get back up and continue stumbling for you. Cut them in half, they’ll pull themselves with their guts dragging behind them. Set them on fire, they’ll keep on after you (at least until the fire damages the brain). No matter what, the only things to keep a zombie down is damaging the brain or severing it from the spinal column.

So, taking all of these three key characteristics into mind, let us look at The Infected:

1) They are not dead. They’re living people (albeit very angry living people).

2) They do not eat human flesh. In fact, they don’t eat period (they end up starving to death by the end).

3) They can be killed just like any other human being can be killed (as portrayed quite a few times in both movies).

The Infected follow none of the key traits of a zombie. Therefore, they’re not zombies. They’re highly enraged humans who have lost all other thoughts except for the primal urge to destroy. And that’s what they do. They use what they have (teeth, fingernails, etc.) to attack a person until they either die or become infected themselves.

So now that all of that is out of the way, we can get to my thoughts on the actual movies. I think both movies are extraordinary in what they do, and they both do different things. Days is the more philosophical one with strong characters and strong character growth. You really feel for the main group and their plight and journeys. And you feel awful when things happen to them. Weeks, on the other hand, focuses more on the heart-pounding, nonstop suspense and the family unit. But that’s not to say you don’t feel for the characters of the sequel. You do; just not in the same way. Days had a slow pacing with the suspense spread out, allowing you to really get some calm, character-knowing moments. Weeks, however, was almost non-stop action, so while you might have really liked a character and felt for them (such as Doyle), you really don’t get to feel you really know them, if that makes sense.

The next big thing to notice about each movie is the visual styles of each. Days has more of a grainy, hand-held, realistic approach, while Weeks is more mainstream high-def camera work. However, where Weeks loses in the grainy picture, it gains in the unique situations that the main characters get put into. When Andy gets stuck in the dark garage full of people, and they start becoming infected, you wonder how on earth he’s going to get out. Or when they go into the subway tunnels and it’s pitch black, so they have to rely on the night-scope and vocal orders to get through safely. Both movies have a unique style for what each does, and both work amazingly well. I would also like to take this moment to mention one of my favorite shots out of both movies, which just so happens to be in Days: When Jim first enters the church (and after passing the ‘the end is fucking nigh’ in blood on the wall), he looks down from the balcony to see a bunch of dead bodies sprawled out right underneath a painting/stained glass window of bodies sprawled out on the ground. It’s just beautiful imagery.

As for acting, Days is far superior. Cillian Murphy knocks it out of the park as Jim, and his character growth is astounding. He begins the movie as a nervous, naïve-to-the-situation, what-the-hell kinda guy. But by the end, he’s a badass, taking charge and wrecking havoc against the military guys. Naomie Harris as Selena probably has the biggest character change, though, going from heartless, tough-as-nails, take-no-shit, I’ll-kill-you-in-a-heartbeat kinda gal, to a caring, loving, compassionate individual (though still pretty tough). Brendan Gleeson as Frank the loving, though worried and protective father was great. You can’t help but feel for him and his dead-set mission on finding the military base so that his daughter can be in safe hands. If there were any downfalls in the acting, it would be Megan Burns as Hannah, Frank’s daughter, who talked really blandly half the time as if she were stoned (though, she is stoned for the entire climax, so that might be alright…).

The best performances for Weeks, on the other hand, were Robert Carlyle as Don (mostly because of his eyes and facial expressions)--at least early on in the movie, anyway--and, of course, Jeremy Renner as Doyle, who is the most likeable character in the movie. And I like him even more, as I saw in a behind-the-scenes that he shares the same opinion with me on the not-zombie issue. As for the kids… well, with real names like Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton, who needs anything more?

It really goes without saying that the winner on the suspense level is Weeks. I’ve said it before, but Weeks has one of the greatest and most suspenseful movie openings ever. And the openings for each movie really show the differences in the two movies. After the monkey sequence, Days has about 10-15 minutes of Jim walking around a beautifully desolate London all alone, slowly realizing that the entire city has seemingly evacuated completely. And then he reaches the church, has the run-in with the priest, and then is chased for about a minute or so before there’s a huge explosion, and that’s it.

Weeks, on the other hand, has a few first slow minutes before there’s a break for quick suspense, then another minute to catch our breath, and then about 5 minutes of non-stop, heart-pounding suspense. And not only that, but there’s so much emotion in that little time frame, especially with Don’s escape.

The two movies were compared in level of greatness with George Romero’s original films. Days was like Night of the Living Dead: classic and amazing. Weeks was like Dawn of the Dead: taking everything great in the first, and making it even better. I used to agree whole- heartedly with that statement, but I really think now that both movies really do two different things in amazing ways that it’s hard to say which is better than the other. The style of Days, uneasy and slow-moving, worked for the story it had to tell. But the style of Weeks, fast-paced and terror-filled, worked for its own story, as well. So in the end, they’re both great, and they’re both two of my favorite horror films. The third one better come soon. But for now, I have to give the two that are currently available both an equal score.

Royale With Cheese

(P.S. I totally forgot to mention this, but the main musical theme in both movies is one of my favorite horror movie themes ever. Purely amazing.)

Thoughts On The (Original) Indiana Jones Trilogy.

As the new movie is coming out soon, Indiana Jones is all over the place. As I don’t own the movies on DVD or the like (as of now), I was fortunate enough to DVR the entire thing from USA Network during their marathon over this past weekend. Well, I just finished watching them for the first time since I was really little, and I believe my opinion is… not warranted… but I’m going to give it anyway. And I’m probably going to get steamrolled for it.

Now, I both can and cannot see why Mr. Jones was and/or is such a big deal. I can see how he might have a cult following, but not a super-huge blockbuster following. Because, honestly, the movies (specifically the first two) were badly made (except for the nifty shadow shots in all three). But before you get on me, please let me clarify.

Starting with Raiders of the Lost Ark, I must say that, at least by today’s standards, the acting is bad, the fights scenes can be good or bad, and the continuity is plain awful. To further explain the latter two bits, there was one scene in particular where Harrison Ford punches at a guy, CLEARLY misses, the guy reacts a bit late, and there’s an over-the-top punching noise. As for the continuity, there’s just too many to pinpoint. However, these things said, I had no problem suspending disbelief, and I thought the movie was really fun. I can totally see what made him an iconic figure, and why people loved the movie. It’s escapist fun.

The second movie, however, is a whole other story. It has similar issues with acting and continuity, but the biggest issues with Temple of Doom are Willie (the main female), the very over-the-top slapstick/physical humor, and the overall difficulty in suspension of disbelief. Willie was pretty annoying, basically screaming or complaining the whole time. And it doesn’t help that, randomly, about halfway in, Indy and Willie suddenly fall in love with each other, even though he couldn’t stand her minutes before. As for the slapstick, it is in the other movies, but I feel it just really didn’t work for this one. And I don’t know much about Indian culture, but while I was watching that dinner scene with the snakes and the monkey brains, etc., even I was like “This is absurd.” And then there were just some things that happen in this movie that I just couldn’t believe, even if it’s meant to be fantasy-like. The coolest thing about the second movie, though? Short Round. That kid was awesome.

So now we’re left with The Last Crusade. Well, really, this one is the best in the series (so far). The only things it had wrong with it were a few continuity errors, but nothing major. There’s slapstick/physical humor in this one, but it works. I think because Sean Connery is usually involved, and that man can pull off anything (“You’re the man now, dawg!”). The stuff at the end with going after the Grail and the three trials is great, and the dude aging super-fast is still creepy, even with the cheesy effects. Not to mention the action was really stepped up in this one. And it starts off with young Indy (R.I.P. River Phoenix) and shows how he came to get his iconic look.

So really, Indiana Jones is cool. He’s human, he has faults, but he’s also a funny badass with a whip. Though, in those respects, he’s also kind of a loser if you really pay attention. He’s only ever been able to keep one item that he’s ever gone after (the golden cross at the beginning of Crusade). The golden skull thing at the beginning of Raiders is stolen. The Ark is taken by the government. The diamond at the beginning of Temple is lost. He drops two of the three stones, and has to give the other one back to the tribe. And then he can’t take the Holy Grail with him at the end of Crusade. Not to mention he can’t seem to keep a woman (one dies, and two are never heard from again, at least until this next one where Karen Allen returns as Marion). But in all seriousness, the Indiana Jones movies (as of right now) are just meant to be escapist fun, and Indy is a great, iconic character played marvelously by Harrison Ford. I just think it’s interesting as to how he grew to the level of popularity that he did. And I’m still stoked for the next one.

Thoughts On Thrillers, Horror, and Torture Porn.

I’m going to do something here I don’t do very often: just have a discussion. That’s right, no movie reviews or anything like that. I felt like giving my opinion on certain semi-related (especially these days) movie genres: thrillers, horror films, and torture porn. These labels get thrown around a lot, and half the time incorrectly.

For instance, earlier this year, a Spanish film entitled El Orfanato (The Orphanage) was released. They called it horror. The movie is not so much horror as much as it is a supernatural thriller or mystery. Words got thrown in like “terrifying” that could turn people away from such an amazing film if they’re not fans of horror. The label gets thrown around so much that it can, in fact, ruin a movie’s turn out.

The biggest disaster to be caused by the act of mislabeling was M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village back in 2004. It was labeled (and advertised) as this super scary horror movie, so when people went to see it thinking they were going to be scared, the only thing we were left with were countless reviews being thrown around saying it was horrible and completely unscary. It’s all in how you go in to a movie. If it had been marketed as a thriller/drama/romance (which is what it was), it might have gotten slightly better reviews, because people's expectations wouldn’t have been elsewhere, meaning they wouldn’t have been nearly as hateful. Likewise, M. Night’s Lady in the Water was treated the same way, when it was more of a children’s fantasy/fairy tale. I remembered having to continually convince my mother that the movie was not meant to be a horror movie every time a trailer came on TV, and she never believed me.

A more recent example of this was Bug in 2006. With the director of The Exorcist at the helm, it was immediately given descriptions such as “one of the most terrifying and truly scary movies I have ever seen.” And (gasp) it wasn’t. And it was never meant to be. It’s a psychological thriller and drama. There was a moment when I was waiting in line somewhere, and some lady started going off about Bug, and how it wasn’t scary at all and that she had demanded her money back. That’s faulty advertising for you. It's even on the poster (click to enlarge it).

Similarly, movies like the first Saw are labeled as horror or torture porn, and they’re usually neither. Bet let me digress for a moment and explain for those who are unaware of what I’m talking about.

The term torture porn came onto the scene because of Eli Roth’s Hostel, in which the first half of the movie is like Cinemax porno, and the second half is, well, people torturing other people to death (I also briefly go into the term in my discussion of the Japanese movie Audition, which has wrongfully been lumped in this subgenre, as well). Since then, people have been twisting the meaning of the term to fit a whole bunch of other films into this random and new subgenre of horror. The most recent to get slapped with the title has been Untraceable, which really only has the torture side down. What people are saying about the subgenre label is that it implies people get off to the gore and torture like they would to porn.

So back to Saw; not only is there no sex or nudity (we’re talking about the first installment only here), but the gory stuff is actually rather minimal. In fact, I wouldn’t even label it as horror as much as a crime and/or psychological thriller. Yet people continually thrust it in with (the God-awful) Hostel and the like. Why is that?

If Silence of the Lambs were to be made today, it would probably be considered torture porn because of Buffalo Bill, when it is, in fact, a crime thriller. In fact, any movie these days that has some kind of psychotic killer that likes to toy with his victims in any fashion will be considered torture porn, and I don’t think that’s right.

Honestly, the only movies I consider acceptable to fall under that label are Hostel and Hostel: Part II (and maybe Uwe Boll’s House of the Dead, because there’s a lot of sex, nudity, and blood, and it’s torturous to watch). And they’re all really, really horrible movies (and I don’t mean because of the subject matter… I just mean they’re boring, horribly made films). So when you link good movies like the first Saw or any other kind of remotely decent movie to that subgenre, it’s irking.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Advertise the movie how it is, and it might just get a better response. Hopefully M. Night’s coming film, The Happening, really is as awesome as it appears. Also, Eli Roth and Uwe Boll need to stop making movies, because they both really suck at it.

That is all.